Awkward Super

gunny558

Being deliberatley vague here incase I go further with this etc

I dropped in for a chat with the local super about an application for a non-restricted firearm and the super is hitting me with the old 'dont like the look of it' and said he was very familiar with this particular firearm and wouldnt licence it to anyone as its too dangerous.

Little does he know, the firearm Im after.... theres actually one in my house right this minute that he licenced to my housemate 6 months ago with no questions asked.

I threw in an application anyway and now I have a meeting with the super this week and Im expecting to get a grilling.

I had planned on telling him about the housemate and try and shame him into giving me a licence- but my housemate is worried if I mention it then the next time he drops in an application he'll get hassle.

So should I say it or not?

Witcher

You won't 'shame him' into issuing the licence so leave that to one side right now.

What is the firearm?

gunny558

Blay wrote: »

You won't 'shame him' into issuing the licence so leave that to one side right now.

So you think I shouldnt mention it?

Blay wrote: »

What is the firearm?

Id rather not say.... but for what is worth, I personally think its a reasonable request and (now of course Im biased) I think the super is just being pinickity because of emm.... well... the name of the company/rifle. Know the way glocks are more dangerous then say a beretta?... Similar kinda thing here.

cookimonster

Sh*t can't go asleep now, curiosity is killing me.........and I can't even turn to the last page for a sneak preview......go on name the elusive firearm or even something similar

bravestar

gunny558 wrote: »

So you think I shouldnt mention it?

You will not shame the super into anything. There are only two possible outcomes. 1. The super doesn't give a rats a$$. 2. The super revokes your housemate's firearm cert.

Witcher

gunny558 wrote: »

So you think I shouldnt mention it?

Id rather not say.... but for what is worth, I personally think its a reasonable request and (now of course Im biased) I think the super is just being pinickity because of emm.... well... the name of the company/rifle. Know the way glocks are more dangerous then say a beretta?... Similar kinda thing here.

You could bring it up and say 'I know of others in the district with the same make/model and they recommended it to me' or whatever but don't say it in a 'They have one so I demand you issue my licence too' kind of way.

gunny558

bravestar wrote: »

2. The super revokes your housemate's firearm cert.

Yeh we talked about this earlier. But we figured it would be career suicide to do that, the minute it goes to the court it wouldnt be half obvious what he did. We guessed if he does anything he'd more likely to give him hassle on future applications.

gunny558

Blay wrote: »

You could bring it up and say 'I know of others in the district with the same make/model and they recommended it to me' or whatever but don't say it in a 'They have one so I demand you issue my licence too' kind of way.

Well thats the plan. Im hoping this goes through as smooth as possible. But if he does start going on again and saying its too dangerous and he wouldnt licence that type of firearm to anyone then I'll throw it out to him... "what about Mr Joe Bloggs , you licenced him this same rifle not even 6 months ago..... whats happened in the past 6 months that its now suddenly too dangerous to licence"

Cass

First off, name the gun. This business of "like a Glock" and other similarly vague descriptions take weight from your argument, and limit the help you can get here. Plus it's annoying as feck. So if it's a gun that can be licensed name it, if not then please spare us the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" routine. Hate to be harsh, but we need info to give the proper advice.

Secondly you, as said above, will not shame the Super into anything. He'll tell you to go to court, and forget about you within 2 minutes. Then you have the pleasure of spending over €3k to get this gun.

Thirdly the Super will not be committing any "career suicide" by going to court even if he has issued 1,000 other license for the same gun. The decision rests with the Super. He can grant them as he wishes and not if he deems it. While court is an option, as said above, once the argument of public safety is trotted out you are on the back foot so are you prepared to go that far and spend that money?

Lastly saying someone else has it, even someone in your house, will still not do anything for you. There can be 20 people in the house all with the same gun and the Super can refuse you. That is the way the licensing system in this country works. It's the person that is licensed and the decision rests with the Super.

FISMA

gunny558 wrote: »

So you think I shouldnt mention it?

Not in the way you mentioned.

Don't play games, don't be cute, and don't try to set the Super up.

If this were me, I would inform the Super that I know of another that was licensed and ask what I could do different in order to ensure success of the application.

gunny558

Cass wrote: »

First off, name the gun. This business of "like a Glock" and other similarly vague descriptions take weight from your argument, and limit the help you can get here. Plus it's annoying as feck. So if it's a gun that can be licensed name it, if not then please spare us the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" routine. Hate to be harsh, but we need info to give the proper advice.

Secondly you, as said above, will not shame the Super into anything. He'll tell you to go to court, and forget about you within 2 minutes. Then you have the pleasure of spending over €3k to get this gun.

Thirdly the Super will not be committing any "career suicide" by going to court even if he has issued 1,000 other license for the same gun. The decision rests with the Super. He can grant them as he wishes and not if he deems it. While court is an option, as said above, once the argument of public safety is trotted out you are on the back foot so are you prepared to go that far and spend that money?

Lastly saying someone else has it, even someone in your house, will still not do anything for you. There can be 20 people in the house all with the same gun and the Super can refuse you. That is the way the licensing system in this country works. It's the person that is licensed and the decision rests with the Super.

PM'd

Savage93

gunny558 wrote: »

PM'd

WTF??????

You come on here looking for advice and go all secretive as to what exactly you want to license. How can you get advice when you won't provide details?????:(:(

One shot on kill

Wink wink I can't this I can't that. Have you the same attitude with the super.
Maybe try being up front an straight forward with him and ask him what can you improve to increase your chances of a succesfful application.

And another thing. Maybe its you he doesn't like not the gun.

I obviously don't know you but if its not the firearm it's something else.

mister gullible

Being a bit harsh. OP obviously doesn't want to say his super is being difficult and then identify himself if the application is current. He also doesn't want to use his housemate as leverage. That seems fair.

gunny558

Savage93 wrote: »

WTF??????

You come on here looking for advice and go all secretive as to what exactly you want to license. How can you get advice when you won't provide details?????:(:(

I told you everything you need to know, its an unrestricted rifle.

Im not convinced that you having the make/model puts you in a better position to give your opinion on whether or not I should mention my house mate to the super or what way I should approach this.

Ive got one or two good answers so far and plan on going in there and doing what FISMA says. That seems to be best suggestion on here. Unless someone else has another idea?

Cass

No disrespect to FISMA or any of the lads that offered similar advice, but saying another lad or a hundred other lads have the same gun won't matter a bit. The Super will simply say he must base his decision on the gun, you (the applicant) and his opinion that the gun is the only one suited to the purpose the OP needs it for.

If the OP can prove this then he'll get the gun. If not, he won't. If his reason is valid, and the Super refuses then he can go to court as the Super is no longer the "end point" for applications. However it's costly both in time and money.

Of course all of this is academic until the meeting. Perhaps the Super will see the determination of the OP and grant the license.

bravestar

gunny558 wrote: »

I told you everything you need to know, its an unrestricted rifle.

Im not convinced that you having the make/model puts you in a better position to give your opinion

It does if your mentioning the idontlikethelook clause and the unrestricted firearm resembles an assault rifle.

TheAppleMan

Say nada about your house mate. Or anybody else. It is irrelevant. It is your application and yours alone. Its probably not fair to call the Super awkward. At least he is meeting you. I really don't see the problem here. By the by, I'd be miffed if I were your housemate...

lefthooker

gunny558 wrote: »

I told you everything you need to know, its an unrestricted rifle.

Im not convinced that you having the make/model puts you in a better position to give your opinio

AWKWARD SUPER

Ironic name for a thread from an OP who won't play ball with those whose advice he seeks:rolleyes:

Very hard to give any advice when you won't divulge any related details, other than;
Don't second guess the super and go in all guns blazing.
And don't dare drop "your mate" in it.

FISMA

Cass wrote: »

The Super will simply say he must base his decision on the gun, you (the applicant) and his opinion that the gun is the only one suited to the purpose the OP needs it for.

Correct and generally agree.

Cass wrote: »

but saying another lad or a hundred other lads have the same gun won't matter a bit.

Again, correct and generally agree, however, the OP stated

gunny558 wrote: »

the super is hitting me with the old 'dont like the look of it' and said he was very familiar with this particular firearm and wouldnt licence it to anyone as its too dangerous.

So, there's a discrepancy here.

No offense to yourself gunny, however, it may be you that the Super does not like and he is just using you above quote as a nice way of getting out of the situation without offending you.

Then again, maybe not. Which is why my approach deals with this concisely, upfront, and gets it out of the way. If there is a secondary concern, this may, or may not, reveal it.

I also believe that you get more from people by empowering them, rather, than forcing them to do some thing. Be a good soldier...

I would stop by to see the Super and ask for a minute of his time - literally.

1) Tell him that you may not understand the full extent of the political nightmare with which he has to deal, but are sure they are considerable and that you do not wish to add to his troubles. (You are on his side, under his wing, being a good soldier).

2) Explain that you understand the firearm has recently been licensed in the district. State your needs, which will be similar to those of your housemate.

Ask if there is anything that you can do to help expedite the granting of the license. If there is a hardship of some sort or loss, explain it.

3) Tell him his word is final and that you will respect that decision - and do so. (Again, good soldier.)

Advise that if upon reconsideration that if he still feels the same way, that he shred the paperwork and no more will be said. His word is final and you will respect any decision.

Tell him you are not going to run to a solicitor or a politician as it is against your religion and ask if you can stop by again in a week or two for the final discussion. Unless, he feels like granting it now!:) (Again, you are on his side, but under his wing).

Again, this conversation should last a minute or two. State your case, empower the Super, and respect the decision.

Don't know if this will help or work. However, if it were me, I would do exactly the above.

The Super is a person, just like us, treat him accordingly, and you'll do as well as can be expected.

Lastly, understand that when it comes to the rules, regulations, and guidelines of firearms in Eire, six months is an evolutionary time scale. Who knows what nonsense the Super has had to contend with since then.

Best wishes.

The Aussie

Do you have any other Firearms Licenced???

Also are you already known to the AGS???

Because by the sound of it it's you and not the Super to be honest.

Cass

FISMA wrote: »

So, there's a discrepancy here.

You are basing that discrepency on the the fact the Super knows about every gun licensed in his district. I'll go one better.

A couple of years ago myself and my Father were licensed on two 9 mm handguns. The very definition of "idon'tlikethelookofthat". My Father for years never had an interview, a meeting, nothing. He was granted the licenses for them each time and usually within 3 weeks. That was from a Chief Super that does not have to concern himself with 99% of firearm applications so you'd think he'd have his finger on he PULSE in relation to what he has granted in his district.

I got called in for one interview then another. I mistakenly answered a question posed to me by the CS that my Father has licenses on the same guns and never had to go through this so why the need to constantly interview me. One should be enough to determine if i'm suitable. The CS immediately turned to the Garda present, and asked him to check to why my Father had not been interviewed, how he had license for two restricted guns and never been called in, etc.

We sold one gun shortly after and the second before any other renewals were due. However i had just alerted the Chief Super to a "gap" in his screening process, and one that he was was intent on closing.

My point being Chief Super's and Supers are not all knowing. If they are shown to have "missed" something they will act to close any loophole or gap, and naming people as the OP intended that have it might cause problems for them. It will also have no effect on the OPs application other than for the Super to refuse it and then look at revoking other licenses which he is within his power to do.

I also believe that you get more from people by empowering them, rather, than forcing them to do some thing. Be a good soldier...

"more flies with honey" is always a good approach, but the force them bit is a non runner as no such facility exists to force a Super to do anything. I know you meant in general everyday terms, but for the purpose of this thread it's a moot point.

I would stop by to see the Super and ask for a minute of his time - literally.

The OP already has a meeting with the Super. Hence the thread.

1) Tell him that you may not understand the full extent of the political nightmare with which he has to deal, but are sure they are considerable and that you do not wish to add to his troubles.

The Super's political or career based problems are nothing to do with the application. Having dealt with Supers and Chief Supers over the years i'm telling you they will not entertain such a conversation. It will be matter of fact and they will only seek to get answers to their questions, nothing more.

2) Explain that you understand the firearm has recently been licensed in the district. State your needs, which will be similar to those of your housemate.

See my comments at the start of this post.

3) Tell him his word is final and that you will respect that decision - and do so.

At the risk of being pedantic this is stating fact and not a show of respect. The Super's word is final (to an extent) and whether you agree with it or not you MUST abide by it.

Advise that if upon reconsideration that if he still feels the same way, that he shred the paperwork and no more will be said. His word is final and you will respect any decision.

If the meeting goes badly the OP will be down as being refused. Something he must declare on all future applications so "shredding the paperwork" is a non runner and an offence.

Tell him you are not going to run to a solicitor or a politician as it is against your religion and ask if you can stop by again in a week or two for the final discussion. Unless, he feels like granting it now!:)

There is no need. The meeting will end in a decision of it being granted or refused. If he does not say anything then ask outright. his mind will have been made up by the end of the meeting.

As for saying you won't go to a solicitor, etc. Don't. Don't even mention the word. Much like we don't the word weapon, they won't hear all the noise around the word solicitor so don't even bring it up.

Again, this conversation should last a minute or two. State your case, empower the Super, and respect the decision.

The shortest of all my meetings was 20 minutes. I was polite, succinct, firm, and went in with all my paperwork, and a good knowledge of the law to the point i could defend or answer everything asked of me.

cw67irl

OP is this it???

gunny558

bravestar wrote: »

It does if your mentioning the idontlikethelook clause and the unrestricted firearm resembles an assault rifle.

When I mentioned the 'i dont like the look' its not physcial appearance that scares him. Its just a plain old bolt action rifle. You'd never mistake it for an "assault rifle" in a month of Sundays.

The reason he doesnt like the look of it is because when we were talking about it he showed me the wikipedia page and the very first sentence calls it a "tactical sniper rifle" then he pointed out that a certain special forces group use this rifle. Civillians have no purpose going around the countryside with "specialised military sniper rifles" and "military calibers" and it attracts criminal elements who would rob me and jepordises public safety etc etc etc

tomtucker81

cw67irl wrote: »

OP is this it???

Ah, the 11 round mag could be the issue there.

cw67irl

tomtucker81 wrote: »

Ah, the 11 round mag could be the issue there.

Or the underwater capabilities

Seriously OP why not name the firearm??

tomtucker81

gunny558 wrote: »

When I mentioned the 'i dont like the look' its not physcial appearance that scares him. Its just a plain old bolt action rifle. You'd never mistake it for an "assault rifle" in a month of Sundays.

The reason he doesnt like the look of it is because when we were talking about it he showed me the wikipedia page and the very first sentence calls it a "tactical sniper rifle" then he pointed out that a certain special forces group use this rifle. Civillians have no purpose going around the countryside with "specialised military sniper rifles" and "military calibers" and it attracts criminal elements who would rob me and jepordises public safety etc etc etc

Below is copied from Remington 700 on Wikipedia. Possibly one of the more common rifles used by people hunting. If the Super was to go by that reasoning, a lot of rifles by different manufacturers would suddenly be off limits.

UsersEdit

 Canada: Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).[13] Indonesia: Komando Pasukan Katak(Kopaska) tactical diver group and Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus) special forces group.[14] Also, the Remington 700 basedPindad SPR-1 is the standard issue sniper rifle for the Indonesian military.[citation needed] Malaysia: Pasukan Gerakan Khas(PGK).[15] Philippines: Philippine Marine Corps(PMC).[16] United States: U.S. Border Patrol,[17]United States Marine Corps, United States Navy, United States Army.[18]

Kinzig

cw67irl wrote: »

Or the underwater capabilities

Seriously OP why not name the firearm??

sshhhhhhhh!.its a secret:rolleyes:

Chiparus

If you name the rifle you will be very identifiable if a Guard wants to find out who you are all they would have to do is run a check on recent applications for that rifle on PULSE.

If it was me I certainly would not divulge any more details.

bravestar

Chiparus wrote: »

If you name the rifle you will be very identifiable if a Guard wants to find out who you are all they would have to do is run a check on recent applications for that rifle on PULSE.

If it was me I certainly would not divulge any more details.

Firstly, why on earth would any Garda waste their time doing that, it is not illegal to speak about firearms applications. Secondly, If a Garda really wanted to ID anyone from this site, they can do so in other ways. The super in question appears to have their mind made up and nothing in this thread is going to change that.

If the OP is that worried about speaking about a firearms application on a website, then they shouldn't have started a thread with bits a pieces of info. Either spit it out and get the advice you are after or just let the thread die.

Sparks

Blay wrote: »

don't say it in a 'They have one so I demand you issue my licence too' kind of way.

...if for no other reason than that that's how the McCarron case started off, and that one went to the High and then Supreme Courts and lost every time and the precedent it set damaged everybody else who is now or ever will be applying for a licence.

Honestly, this is Ireland. How dumb do you have to be to think you can cute-hoor a Garda Superintendent who's spent more than a few hours in the uniform dealing with every cute hoor and gombeen in the district?