Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Sparks

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
337. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on a matter (details supplied) regarding gun licences; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8064/15]

Frances Fitzgerald (Minister, Department of Justice and Equality; Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)

I have asked the Garda Commissioner for a report in relation to the matter and will write to the Deputy as soon as I have further information.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
323. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide an update concerning firearms (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7853/15]

Frances Fitzgerald (Minister, Department of Justice and Equality; Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)

I can inform the Deputy of the number of rifles, shotguns and handguns reported stolen in the past five years. The table beneath refers to each year from 2010 to 2014 and is provided from Garda PULSE records.

Firearms stolen|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|Total
Handgun|9|12|16|12|8|57 (incl. 40 air pistols)
Rifle|49|79|76|65|48|317
Shotgun|184|216|166|174|113|853
Other|119|93|84|102|85|483
Total|361|400|342|353|254|1710

These figures relate to licensed and unlicensed firearms stolen over the period, which includes those stolen from Firearms Dealers.

The category of other firearms in the table includes firearms as defined under the Firearms Acts such as, humane killer, starting gun and blank firing gun.

The total figure for handguns of 57 includes 40 air pistols.

Figures are operational and are liable to change.

Best guess on the first one is something along the lines of "how many stolen licenced firearms have subsequently been used in crime" but that's just a guess...

homerhop

How many of the 17 pistols were stolen from private holders?

bpb101

homerhop wrote: »

How many of the 17 pistols were stolen from private holders?

there was apparently no rdf breakin apart from 2012
so at least 1 was robbed
That presumes all of the robbed handgun in 2012 were actual handguns(not air) and were robbed from rdf.
id would say maybe 7-10

still 1/4 of firearms robbed are not "guns". plus of them rifles ,some were air rifles(i presume)

and i would say the majority of shotguns were unsecured.

so if we actually look at them figured. about 300- 400 firearms over the last 4 years were robbed from licenses homes with safes
only guess work , but still
And if you look at them 300, the ones in safes several were more than lightly stolen together

so 200 breakins to safes in the last 4 years
50 breakins a year
or 1 a week instead of one a day

Sparks

Even my air pistol, which is one of the cheapest ISSF pistols you can get, cost 250 euro (for the more upmarket ones, add a zero). Forty of those? That's a fair chunk of change to go missing without any of us hearing about it...

yubabill1

No breakdown of rifle/shotguns stolen - i.e.; why didn't they specify how many semi auto's/pumps stolen, seeing as how they are alleged to be a danger to society?

Wonder which side leaked these figs the other day? No prizes. http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0224/682505-over-1-700-firearms-stolen-since-2010/

Estimated 150,000 unlicensed guns in Ireland and all this palaver about 17 handguns (how many 22LR's in that?) being a risk to public safety.

We all know that's not going to solve the problem.

Embarrassed red faces in order IMHO.

SVI40

Not forgetting that any Garda, of any rank can change the classification of a crime on the Pulse system, according to the Inspectorates report.

Just saying..........:D

BattleCorp

Would those handgun figures include firearms lost or stolen from the Defence Forces or Gardai?

Sandy22

"Figures are operational and are liable to change"


2011 is particularly interesting, as it appears almost to have doubled since last December.

I believe it's said to be one of the advantages of the old Soviet system that at least the future was certain, even if the past wasn't.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Estimated 150,000 unlicensed guns in Ireland

Says one study, done in 2007, and rubbished by everyone.
Honestly, pick any number at random that you like, and that's as accurate an estimate as that 150,000 thing. The only significance to the 150,000 figure is that it was used in that 2007 figure to say we had 8.6 firearms per 100 people rather than the actual 4.3 and that affected where we were in the firearms ownership table in the EU.
Really wish people would stop quoting that 150,000 number like it actually had any value...

turismo2142

@ Sandy22

Yeah, that bit stuck out the most.

As alluded to previously, I'd be very interested to see the number of "unsecured thefts", of course I doubt that information will be provided. It still stuns me that mandatory safe storage for all firearms isn't a strict legal requirement. Surely it's the obvious answer to all these pseudo AGS concerns.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Says one study, done in 2007, and rubbished by everyone.
Honestly, pick any number at random that you like, and that's as accurate an estimate as that 150,000 thing. The only significance to the 150,000 figure is that it was used in that 2007 figure to say we had 8.6 firearms per 100 people rather than the actual 4.3 and that affected where we were in the firearms ownership table in the EU.
Really wish people would stop quoting that 150,000 number like it actually had any value...

I actually flagged that 8.6 figure to the DoJE in my submission.

However, my specialty is taking the other side's misinformation and using it against them.

I know I'm smug.

yubabill1

turismo2142 wrote: »

It still stuns me that mandatory safe storage for all firearms isn't a strict legal requirement. Surely it's the obvious answer to all these pseudo AGS concerns.

We're in the endgame now.

Mandatory gunsafes are one of our trump cards - the other side really don't need thousands of militant farmers running flocks sheep into garda stations, now do they?

As I've said - there is disarray in the ranks on the other side because these proposals have become toxic. In an election year, the last thing politicians want is to annoy citizens who diligently vote (that's us), especially when they're getting emails and such from same.

extremetaz

I wouldn't have thought there was even 40 licenced air pistols in the country at any given time, let alone that they'd make up 70% of all handgun thefts in the last 5 years!

Seems incredibly dubious to me.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Tuesday, 24 February 2015




Best guess on the first one is something along the lines of "how many stolen licenced firearms have subsequently been used in crime" but that's just a guess...

Those figures will be grist to Comrade Mc Graths sugar cane mill!::rolleyes:
whats the bet he will be sounding off on these as they are gospel and proving his points?
So in reality there have been 14 "handguns" stolen?As the rest are air pistols?
Who also reports an unliscensed handfgun as being stolen?And were these people prosecuted as well?dont hear that many cases of this happening in the last four yesars for some reason?
Definately this mandatory gun safes for everyone will be,and should be played.It would be exellent if the sleeping giant of the IFA could be awoken on this issue.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

We're in the endgame now.

Yeah, we're not. There's no such thing in this.
Ten years from now, fifty years from now, maybe even a hundred (if the Germans don't sell us for spare parts that is), there will still be licenced firearms and Gardai.

These proposals aren't good and need to go away. But we do have a pretty horrible body of legislation with lots of flaws and that needs fixing and if we did fix it and the Garda training budget became less of a punching bag, we could reasonably expect the vast majority of issues to get settled.

But "endgame" implies an actual end, and this ain't gonna happen, ever.

In fact, if these proposals are rejected to be reworked, the worst thing we could do is start calling it a victory and cheering. Until we get this brokenly adversarial atmosphere that's out there between the Gardai and shooters to go the hell away and get back to fixing problems in a calm measured fashion, we're never going to be able to just get on with our sport, we'll be involved in this kind of scrap forever. And we only have to lose once.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Who also reports an unliscensed handfgun as being stolen?

I thought that the "unlicenced firearm" bit referred to RFD's unsold stock...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Y

B
In fact, if these proposals are rejected to be reworked, the worst thing we could do is start calling it a victory and cheering. Until we get this brokenly adversarial atmosphere that's out there between the Gardai and shooters to go the hell away and get back to fixing problems in a calm measured fashion, we're never going to be able to just get on with our sport, we'll be involved in this kind of scrap forever.

And the best way to get out of a broken and abusive relationship is one of the parties leaves the relationship.There is now less than zero trust between us and AGS/DOJ on this issue and it will take decades to rebuild ,if ever. Hence it would be better if AGS is removed vrom this equation and this is dealt with by civillian admin.As any EU country does.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I thought that the "unlicenced firearm" bit referred to RFD's unsold stock...

Wouldnt't it be liscensed by rights under the dealers liscense?Or classified as stolen from dealers stock?

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And the best way to get out of a broken and abusive relationship is one of the parties leaves the relationship.

Honestly, if anyone is thinking that this will be sufficient to get the AGS and DOJ out of licencing firearms, they've not really got a good grip on things.
Even if you could get in centralised licencing, the AGS would be running it.
And even if you could get a civilian group put in charge of licencing, the AGS would still be consulted for background checks, vetting and local security concerns.
(And I'm still trying to figure out who those civilians would be and why we think civil servants would be any different).

Fact is, we're going to have to work with these people.
What we need is to have the right working environment and the right rules to work by. In other words, we don't want some great individual victory over one set of ill-considered proposals to change the law, we need a realistic change in how things are done at a fundamental level.

That's entirely doable, by the way. Its just that it's not going to be flashy or sexy and it won't mean you get to rub a Garda's nose in muck. All you'll get out of it is to be able to enjoy your sport, know what the law says you can do and what you can't, and not have to worry about unwritten whims deciding whether or not you can take part in a recognised sport.

Now me, I'm kindof a dry ****e at the best of times, so to me that actually sounds like a good deal...

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Wouldnt't it be liscensed by rights under the dealers liscense?Or classified as stolen from dealers stock?

I don't think so. An RFD licence is for the person themselves saying their storage and so on is up to snuff; they wouldn't have firearms certificates for each firearm they hold in stock, they're covered for that under section 2 of the act.

I could be wrong, but that's just what seemed the most natural reading to me.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, we're not. There's no such thing in this.
Ten years from now, fifty years from now, maybe even a hundred (if the Germans don't sell us for spare parts that is), there will still be licenced firearms and Gardai.

These proposals aren't good and need to go away. But we do have a pretty horrible body of legislation with lots of flaws and that needs fixing and if we did fix it and the Garda training budget became less of a punching bag, we could reasonably expect the vast majority of issues to get settled.

But "endgame" implies an actual end, and this ain't gonna happen, ever.

In fact, if these proposals are rejected to be reworked, the worst thing we could do is start calling it a victory and cheering. Until we get this brokenly adversarial atmosphere that's out there between the Gardai and shooters to go the hell away and get back to fixing problems in a calm measured fashion, we're never going to be able to just get on with our sport, we'll be involved in this kind of scrap forever. And we only have to lose once.

It's the endgame for these proposals and their promoters.

Callinan: Gone.
Purcell: Gone.
Shatter: Gone.

Let's hope the new commissioner sorts out the senior management faction still living in the 1970's.

And there's supposed to be a new authority overseeing AGS - another good thing IMHO.

I mean, we all know there is a more enlightened sector in AGs management that can see the wood from the trees.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Honestly, i

f anyone is thinking that this will be sufficient to get the AGS and DOJ out of licencing firearms, they've not really got a good grip on things.

Nothing wrong with starting to plant the seeds of this ide,and even one Cheif Super in Kerry mooted last yearin the Irish Independant that this is an inetiveble outcome.

Even if you could get in centralised licencing, the AGS would be running it.
And even if you could get a civilian group put in charge of licencing, the AGS would still be consulted for background checks, vetting and local security concerns.

As most if not all EU police forces do,but THATS ALL they do,nothing else.No police force in continental EU makes any decision on who gets a firearms liscense for sporting use.[,unless maybe concealed carry permits which our lot have done before and still can do belive it or not.]But then again they liscense the man and not the gun,and the process for getting a gun liscense isnt anything like here.

(And I'm still trying to figure out who those civilians would be and why we think civil servants would be any different)

.

I could think of at least a half dozen people here on boards alone that could be eminently qualified to apply for a position on such a board.:DCivil servants work on the principle of if the paper is correct and all in order with I dpotted and T crossed,give out the required goodies as the papers are in order.
AGS otoh is a political police force and under orders to obey from on high what comes down the chain whether they like it or not.

Fact is, we're going to have to work with these people.
What we need is to have the right working environment and the right rules to work by.

Yeah,that has been done,but one or the other side didnt play by the rules.So who is going to referee the rules??

That's entirely doable, by the way. Its just that it's not going to be flashy or sexy and it won't mean you get to rub a Garda's nose in muck. All you'll get out of it is to be able to enjoy your sport, know what the law says you can do and what you can't, and not have to worry about unwritten whims deciding whether or not you can take part in a recognised sport

.
/QUOTE]

As my point above,and how do you trust people who have been shown to consistently break the rules when it suits them even in our courts of law,lie thru their teeth in said courts too, and are also known as the holders of grudges for a long time,as they have proven by their actions and deeds?
its like being in an abusive relationship when even after counselling sessions , one or the other party kicks the other in the head behind the closed house door .But it looks all sweet and light to an outside observer?
IOW ,yes we have to work with them,but how do we trust them?Because if we win this,they will be looking for any excuse to get back at us no matter what.

bravestar

SVI40 wrote: »

Not forgetting that any Garda, of any rank can change the classification of a crime on the Pulse system, according to the Inspectorates report.

Just saying..........:D

Don't want to go off on a tangent again but in the interest of factual information being present on this thread, that is simply not true.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I don't think so. An RFD licence is for the person themselves saying their storage and so on is up to snuff; they wouldn't have firearms certificates for each firearm they hold in stock, they're covered for that under section 2 of the act.

I could be wrong, but that's just what seemed the most natural reading to me.

AFIK,it is to cover the stock enmasse as liscensed to the dealer,as otherwise how could the dealer work,testfire,transport etc the guns?The security and personal suitability side is signed off by the Super as being satisfactory.

Traumadoc

bravestar wrote: »

Don't want to go off on a tangent again but in the interest of factual information being present on this thread, that is simply not true.

The CSO don't even believe the guards statistics.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with starting to plant the seeds of this ide,and even one Cheif Super in Kerry mooted last yearin the Irish Independant that this is an inetiveble outcome.

The heat death of the universe is an inevitable outcome too Grizzly, but nobody's advising anyone not to start reading any long novels because of it...

I could think of at least a half dozen people here on boards alone that could be eminently qualified to apply for a position on such a board.:D

Yup. Now, how many of those half a dozen would want to (or for that matter, could afford the pay cut it would entail)?

Civil servants work on the principle of if the paper is correct and all in order with I dpotted and T crossed,give out the required goodies as the papers are in order.

So if that's how civil servants work, and we can work with that, why did you say above that:

There is now less than zero trust between us and AGS/DOJ on this issue and it will take decades to rebuild ,if ever.

Because if you think the civil servants will be from the Department of Sport, I think you're mistaken.

Yeah,that has been done,but one or the other side didnt play by the rules.So who is going to referee the rules?

For the moment, I'd say that the fact that almost nobody can read the damn rulebook and the few that can have all spotted lots of places where it makes no damn sense is a more pressing problem than looking to hire a referee, even if that is an important problem too.

As my point above,and how do you trust people who have been shown to consistently break the rules when it suits them even in our courts of law,lie thru their teeth in said courts too, and are also known as the holders of grudges for a long time,as they have proven by their actions and deeds?

Lying in a court is something that the courts take a dim view of, to the point where it's an actual crime. So that's a problem that comes with a predefined solution, all you have to do is prove that it's what's happened.
(If you're looking for a solution where you can fix that without proving it, you might be there for a while).

Also, if we're going to be absolute bastards about insisting that people stick to the rules, we're going to have to be absolutely sure those rules aren't filled with nonsensical conflicting stuff first.

I mean, little things. Like there being two conflicting definitions of the word "firearm" in Irish law. And so on.

IOW ,yes we have to work with them,but how do we trust them?Because if we win this,they will be looking for any excuse to get back at us no matter what.

And your solution to this is?
(If it's "fire them all" or "get them out of licencing", you might want to rethink those, because the former would be political suicide for the Minister and career suicide for the Commissioner; and the latter, barring a massive sea change, will not be happening anytime soon).

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

AFIK,it is to cover the stock enmasse as liscensed to the dealer,as otherwise how could the dealer work,testfire,transport etc the guns?

Section 2(3)(c) covers the stock so long as the dealer has an RFD licence.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

And your solution to this is?
(If it's "fire them all" or "get them out of licencing", you might want to rethink those, because the former would be political suicide for the Minister and career suicide for the Commissioner; and the latter, barring a massive sea change, will not be happening anytime soon).

They'll probably all get promoted out.

turismo2142

Guys, has anyone taken the time to do a consolidated version of the 1925 Act (i.e. How it reads after all of the amendments)?

Sparks

turismo2142 wrote: »

Guys, has anyone taken the time to do a consolidated version of the 1925 Act (i.e. How it reads after all of the amendments)?

Yes. The Law Reform Commission has one, there's one in the appendices of the only textbook on this chunk of law, the NTSA has one, and I did one after the 06 act but it doesn't include the 09 act.

The other 15 or 16 acts that make up the law that governs the use of firearms by licenced owners, however, you're on your own with