Is it legal to hold a firearm for home defence?

Young Blood

.

Frynge

No.

Gaillimh1976

Depends how you define 'vermin control'

Young Blood

SO it's a grey area then?

riffmongous

No it's not legal

Notavirus.exe

Young Blood wrote: »

SO it's a grey area then?

You can own one for other reasons and I think you can use it in defence.

riffmongous

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

You can own one for other reasons and I think you can use it in defence.

Nally got his conviction quashed in the end, and after that they had to change the law to allow 'reasonable force'. But I think if you had a gun and shot someone with it and killed them and then the investigating guards found out that in your application you specified 'hunting' as your reason and then never once went hunting with it you could be in serious trouble..

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0719/133509-homedefence/

Applying for a target shooting license is the other main 'purpose' but requires membership of a club first iirc

Young Blood

So in reality you can have a shotgun for hunting or target practice, and use it on a home intruder if your life is in danger. If that's the case, shouldn't they update the law?

Notavirus.exe

riffmongous wrote: »

Nally got his conviction quashed in the end, and after that they had to change the law to allow 'reasonable force'. But I think if you had a gun and shot someone with it and killed them and then the investigating guards found out that in your application you specified 'hunting' as your reason and then never once went hunting with it you could be in serious trouble..

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0719/133509-homedefence/

Applying for a target shooting license is the other main 'purpose' but requires membership of a club first iirc

I don't understand what they mean by "reasonable force". It sounds as if there's a limit as to what you are allowed to do to defend yourself.

riffmongous

Young Blood wrote: »

So in reality you can have a shotgun for hunting or target practice, and use it on a home intruder if your life is in danger. If that's the case, shouldn't they update the law?

The law is only going to get more restrictive (with regards to acquiring guns). I'm not sure if there has even been a shooting case to test the current law yet?

Little CuChulainn

Young Blood wrote: »

So in reality you can have a shotgun for hunting or target practice, and use it on a home intruder if your life is in danger. If that's the case, shouldn't they update the law?

The law is fine as it is. You cannot get a gun simply for home defence. If you have a gun you can use it to defend yourself. Same goes for a kitchen knife, a golf club or a nail gun.

riffmongous

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I don't understand what they mean by "reasonable force". It sounds as if there's a limit as to what you are allowed to do to defend yourself.

Well depends on if you were actually defending yourself when it will come before the courts I guess, compare two english cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/3954033.stm

goz83

Using a firearm for anything other than the licensed purpose(s) is illegal. If an intruder broke into your two storey house and stayed downstairs, it probably wouldn't be advisable to go running downstairs with a loaded gun. If an intruder were to come upstairs after you give warning and your kids are upstairs....well, you might have a better chance in court after putting a round, or two into the intruder, but it is still illegal.

Pat Mustard

goz83 wrote: »

Using a firearm for anything other than the licensed purpose(s) is illegal. If an intruder broke into your two storey house and stayed downstairs, it probably wouldn't be advisable to go running downstairs with a loaded gun. If an intruder were to come upstairs after you give warning and your kids are upstairs....well, you might have a better chance in court after putting a round, or two into the intruder, but it is still illegal.

Can you point to caselaw or legislation or anything at all where it says that it is illegal to load your firearm and confront a burglar in your own home?

If somebody broke into my house, I'd go downstairs to check it out and I'd have zero intention of being unarmed.

See justifiable use of force.

BattleCorp

As has already been clarified, it's 100% illegal to have a gun for self defence here in Ireland.

That said, you are allowed to use reasonable force. Reasonable force is a grey area but in my useless opinion an example of reasonable force would be if someone was on top of you trying to stick a knife into you, then shooting them would probably be considered reasonable force.

If they were 13 year olds stealing your apples in the orchard, shooting them would probably not be considered reasonable force.

It all depends on the circumstances.

A judge would be very interested to know how the gun happened to be in your hand at the time of the incident. I am required to keep my firearms locked in a safe when I am not at the range. If I heard a noise downstairs, and then went to the safe and unlocked it, got out the gun, assembled it, loaded it and then went downstairs, the judge might say that shooting someone in those circumstances was premeditated.

You might possible save your life by using one, but you might also spend a significant portion of the rest of your life behind bars for using it.

seamus

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Can you point to caselaw or legislation or anything at all where it says that it is illegal to load your firearm and confront a burglar in your own home?

If somebody broke into my house, I'd go downstairs to check it out and I'd have zero intention of being unarmed.

Intent and reasonable force are the two key points really that bite you. And neither are (or can be) firmly defined.

"Reasonable force" is a grey area and subject to interpretation. In terms of protecting property alone, shooting someone will never be considered "reasonable" force, since killing or permanently disabling someone just to save your TV or your car is not reasonable. Likewise taking a heavy iron bar and smacking them across the head will likely get you into trouble since death is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of such an action.

Punching them in the face or wrestling them to the ground is far more defensible in court.

Where it comes to protecting people, intent is important - both yours and theirs. If you load your gun and go down to confront them, you have clearly shown your intention is to shoot if they don't retreat. However you haven't shown the intruders' intent. Simply being in your home doesn't prove intention to cause injury to you.
In this case, you are way above the bounds of what constitutes reasonable force, because you are not personally threatened.
Specifically *not* loading your gun in this case is the smarter option as you have shown that you do not intend to shoot, but merely to scare, and you can use a shotgun as a baton if you have to. Plus it also means that in the likely event that the gun is taken from you, it can't be used on you.

The law quoted above contains a specific clause which allows for a defence of an "honestly-held" belief, e.g., "I honestly believed that they were there to kill me". But a competent barrister could easily have you sh1tting your pants in cross-examination on that.

In short, it is fraught so with many permutations and what-ifs that confronting someone in your home with a loaded weapon should logically be your last-ditch option anyway - when you think they're going to attack you and you can't get away. If you can assess the situation and believe that you can chase them away without getting into a physical confrontation, then go for it. Otherwise you're actually inviting injury or death on yourself by confronting them.

Jawgap

It's illegal.

And even if there is some convoluted loophole the Guards won't give you a licence if they think you want a firearm for home defence.

BrownTrout

IMO having a gun for "home defence" means you are keeping it for the sole purpose of using it to kill another human being, even if they are robbing your house.

Besides, the last thing us gun owners need is an Oscar Pistorious type incident, tightening our already very restrictive gun laws and giving legitimate hunters and target shooters a bad name.

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

In short, it is fraught so with many permutations and what-ifs that confronting someone in your home with a loaded weapon should logically be your last-ditch option anyway - when you think they're going to attack you and you can't get away. If you can assess the situation and believe that you can chase them away without getting into a physical confrontation, then go for it. Otherwise you're actually inviting injury or death on yourself by confronting them.

I agree with this, the general thrust of what you are saying. Death and injury are bad outcomes.

seamus wrote: »

Where it comes to protecting people, intent is important - both yours and theirs. If you load your gun and go down to confront them, you have clearly shown your intention is to shoot if they don't retreat.

It does not necessarily mean that there is intention to shoot if they do not retreat. A householder could come downstairs with a loaded gun having rung the police, keeping said gun trained on the burglar, firing only if the burglar comes at the householder.

seamus wrote: »

However you haven't shown the intruders' intent. Simply being in your home doesn't prove intention to cause injury to you.
In this case, you are way above the bounds of what constitutes reasonable force, because you are not personally threatened.
Specifically *not* loading your gun in this case is the smarter option as you have shown that you do not intend to shoot, but merely to scare, and you can use a shotgun as a baton if you have to. Plus it also means that in the likely event that the gun is taken from you, it can't be used on you.

I do not agree with you here. If there is a gun and ammunition in the house during a burglary, the householder is in a very dangerous position. I'm of the opinion that the householder should take steps to ensure that the burglar cannot get hold of a loaded firearm, in those circumstances.

seamus

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It does not necessarily mean that there is intention to shoot if they do not retreat. A householder could come downstairs with a loaded gun having rung the police, keeping said gun trained on the burglar, firing only if the burglar comes at the householder.

I guess my point here is that by loading the gun, you're making it clear that you have made the decision to shoot it, if necessary, rather than any other course of action.
And you have done so without assessing whether firing the weapon is "reasonable force" for the circumstances.

This is the intent problem. How can you prove that the level of force you used was "reasonable", when your intention was to use that level of force regardless of what the situation called for?

"I didn't intend to shoot him" - then why did you load the gun?

I do not agree with you here. If there is a gun and ammunition in the house during a burglary, the householder is in a very dangerous position. I'm of the opinion that the householder should take steps to ensure that the burglar cannot get hold of a loaded firearm, in those circumstances.

We are actually agreeing here
The worst possible thing that can happen is that an intruder gets a hold of your weapon and your ammo. Aside from leaving both on a table beside the front door, the most likely way an intruder is going to get a hold of the gun and the ammo is if the householder loads the weapon and brings it to him.

In countries like the US with strong weapon ownership and "stand your ground" legislation, this is the most likely way an armed householder will die.

Keep the weapon and the ammo both securely locked away in separate rooms with separate keys for the locks and the intruder is unlikely to manage to get both in a reasonable timeframe. Confront an intruder with an unloaded weapon and you're less likely to die or end up in jail for aggravated manslaughter.

hullaballoo

There is no such thing as aggravated manslaughter in this jurisdiction. Unlawful killing (by a natural person) has two facets; murder or manslaughter and that's it.

MarkAnthony

It's not an objective reasonable force standard. It's reasonable force in the eyes of the person using the force with an objective element.

riffmongous

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I do not agree with you here. If there is a gun and ammunition in the house during a burglary, the householder is in a very dangerous position. I'm of the opinion that the householder should take steps to ensure that the burglar cannot get hold of a loaded firearm, in those circumstances.

This should not be really be possible though as you are required by the law to have your gun safely stored and the Irish law is quite strict on this, which should mean that a trespasser cannot just access them without a lot of effort, unless the burglar is specifically raiding the house for guns, in which case they are most likely already armed and dangerous, but unlikely to want confrontation. (this actually was a situation in one of the english cases I posted earlier)

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

I guess my point here is that by loading the gun, you're making it clear that you have made the decision to shoot it, if necessary, rather than any other course of action.
And you have done so without assessing whether firing the weapon is "reasonable force" for the circumstances.

I'd suggest that you are putting the cart before the horse here. I would have thought that it would be reasonable to investigate a break-in in one's own home with shotgun in hand and assess the situation whilst armed, rather than attempt to retreat to arm oneself, following a potentially ugly encounter with a burglar.

seamus wrote: »

This is the intent problem. How can you prove that the level of force you used was "reasonable", when your intention was to use that level of force regardless of what the situation called for?

This premise is not correct, Seamus. I am not trying to use say that force can be reasonable when the intention is to use force, regardless of the situation. It is possible to threaten a burglar with a loaded firearm and that is the scenario which I am using. Okay, you suggested doing so with an unloaded shotgun but what happens if you are an elderly farmer and there are two burly burglars? I would suggest that confronting them whilst the shotgun was unloaded would be unwise. I see nothing wrong with a householder confronting burglars in his own home with his own shotgun.

seamus wrote: »

We are actually agreeing here
The worst possible thing that can happen is that an intruder gets a hold of your weapon and your ammo. Aside from leaving both on a table beside the front door, the most likely way an intruder is going to get a hold of the gun and the ammo is if the householder loads the weapon and brings it to him.

Yes, I agree with that.

seamus wrote: »

Keep the weapon and the ammo both securely locked away in separate rooms with separate keys for the locks and the intruder is unlikely to manage to get both in a reasonable timeframe. Confront an intruder with an unloaded weapon and you're less likely to die or end up in jail for aggravated manslaughter.

I agree only to the extent that if a householder confronts a burglar in his own home and if he shoots him, the matter is likely to investigated by Gardai and if the householder has put a foot wrong, he is likely to be prosecuted.

If the burglar takes hold of the firearm, the householder could be badly injured or killed.

However, the householder may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, in various circumstances, to include protection of himself or others, from injury, assault or death.

If the householder points a loaded shotgun at a burglar and tells him to get out of his house, if the burglar rushes at the householder, I would think that the householder could make a convincing argument that he was in fear that burglar would injure or kill him with his own gun.

The test is whether the force is reasonable in the circumstances as the householder believes them to be. It is a subjective test.

Pat Mustard

riffmongous wrote: »

which should mean that a trespasser cannot just access them without a lot of effort

Elderly farmer beaten up by burglars, key to gun cabinet given up, gun taken. It has happened before.

riffmongous wrote: »

unless the burglar is specifically raiding the house for guns, in which case they are most likely already armed and dangerous, but unlikely to want confrontation. (this actually was a situation in one of the english cases I posted earlier)

Again, this happens too.

BattleCorp

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If the householder points a loaded shotgun at a burglar and tells him to get out of his house, if the burglar rushes at the householder, I would think that the householder could make a convincing argument that he was in fear that burglar would injure or kill him with his own gun.

The problem there is how the householder came to be in possession of a loaded shotgun.

Lets say the shotgun was stored disassembled in a safe with the ammo in another safe.

Does getting the keys, opening the safes, assembling the gun, loading it, then heading off to confront a burglar not stink of premeditation?

Now if you were out hunting and had your gun with you and somebody decided to attack you with a chainsaw, then you might have an excuse for shooting someone without it being premeditated.

riffmongous

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Elderly farmer beaten up by burglars, key to gun cabinet given up, gun taken. It has happened before.


Again, this happens too.

Never thought of that, I was imagining a very different scenario.

MarkAnthony

BattleCorp wrote: »

The problem there is how the householder came to be in possession of a loaded shotgun.

Lets say the shotgun was stored disassembled in a safe with the ammo in another safe.

Does getting the keys, opening the safes, assembling the gun, loading it, then heading off to confront a burglar not stink of premeditation?

Now if you were out hunting and had your gun with you and somebody decided to attack you with a chainsaw, then you might have an excuse for shooting someone without it being premeditated.

The Defence of The Dwelling Act does not preclude premediatation.

BattleCorp

What is reasonable force when it comes to protecting your property?

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances
as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present
in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or
death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of
another person from appropriation, destruction or
damage caused by a criminal act, or

Would "He was running away with my wallet so I had to shoot him, it was the only way I could stop him stealing it your honour" be considered reasonable force? You would be, after all, protecting your property.

MarkAnthony

BattleCorp wrote: »

What is reasonable force when it comes to protecting your property?

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances
as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present
in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or
death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of
another person from appropriation, destruction or
damage caused by a criminal act, or

Would "He was running away with my wallet so I had to shoot him, it was the only way I could stop him stealing it your honour" be considered reasonable force? You would be, after all, protecting your property.

Your question forms many a law School exam with no correct answer, only well argued ones.

cajonlardo

Personally wouldn't hold a fire arm for defense.

I live in a home where plasterboard separates me from my children's rooms.
The chances of a round discharged killing or maiming the wrong person after passing through or missing the intended target are too high. There are also windows to consider - don't fancy killing neighbours either. And I hardly trust my neighbour with an electric hedge cutter - I'd hate him to own a fire arm.

Then...

I've had to deal with burglars 4 separate times. Say I shot them. 4 times in front of a judge. Do you think that judges would believe there was no alternative on 4 different occasions but to fire?

Reasonable force for protection, in my Legally uneducated opinion, is the least amount of force necessary to defend yourself.
If a lad tried to punch you and you pushed him away - that is reasonable. If you shoved him onto the ground and kicked him unconcious that would be extreme. Proportionate might be the key word

Sam Kade

hullaballoo wrote: »

There is no such thing as aggravated manslaughter in this jurisdiction. Unlawful killing (by a natural person) has two facets; murder or manslaughter and that's it.

What about self defence?

Snickers Man

Young Blood wrote: »

.

YES

(But only in Murka. Not here. We've got more sense than that.)

longgonesilver

You are really over complicating things in some respects. Guns are discharged in defence much more often than you know about. Vans drive into isolated country yards, late at night usually. The dog barks and wakes the owners. A warning shot is fired out the window and the van leaves, travelling faster than before. Incident is not reported by either party.

MarkAnthony

cajonlardo wrote: »

Personally wouldn't hold a fire arm for defense.

I live in a home where plasterboard separates me from my children's rooms.
The chances of a round discharged killing or maiming the wrong person after passing through or missing the intended target are too high. There are also windows to consider - don't fancy killing neighbours either. And I hardly trust my neighbour with an electric hedge cutter - I'd hate him to own a fire arm.

Then...

I've had to deal with burglars 4 separate times. Say I shot them. 4 times in front of a judge. Do you think that judges would believe there was no alternative on 4 different occasions but to fire?

Reasonable force for protection, in my Legally uneducated opinion, is the least amount of force necessary to defend yourself.
If a lad tried to punch you and you pushed him away - that is reasonable. If you shoved him onto the ground and kicked him unconcious that would be extreme. Proportionate might be the key word

Speaking practically - it's a jury decision, each jury would not be aware of the foregoing cases and in each case you're almost certainly going to find them sypathetic.

To be clear I'm not condoning the use of a fire arm in the defence of the home, I'm simply having the discussion on the legal nuances. That said I don't condemn it either.

Pat Mustard

BattleCorp wrote: »

Does getting the keys, opening the safes, assembling the gun, loading it, then heading off to confront a burglar not stink of premeditation?

I am talking about somebody hearing sounds of a break-in, getting and loading their shotgun and confronting a burglar. Simple as that.

It seems to me that you may be talking about something else.

MarkAnthony

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I am talking about somebody hearing sounds of a break-in, getting and loading their shotgun and confronting a burglar. Simple as that.

It seems to me that you may be talking about something else.

Hand Guns I think.

stefanovich

I think shooting an intruder is perfectly reasonable although most likely illegal.
Allowing firearms for home defence would result in a massive drop in burglary rates.
Come into my house with malicious intent and you will die.

Pat Mustard

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Hand Guns I think.

Handguns are few enough in Ireland, so I presume that he was not talking about them.

Pat Mustard

stefanovich wrote: »

Come into my house with malicious intent and you will die.

Ok

Notavirus.exe

I think having a gun is good. What if two or more guys broke in? They'd surely overpower one person. If you have a gun, you can fire a warning shot.

If I had to shoot, I'd aim for the legs. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself knowing I killed someone, criminal or not.

MarkAnthony

Guns in homes means the burglar(s) bring guns. I'd rather help them out to the van with the plasma than be shot over the stupid fecking thing.

eeguy

goz83 wrote: »

Using a firearm for anything other than the licensed purpose(s) is illegal. If an intruder broke into your two storey house and stayed downstairs, it probably wouldn't be advisable to go running downstairs with a loaded gun. If an intruder were to come upstairs after you give warning and your kids are upstairs....well, you might have a better chance in court after putting a round, or two into the intruder, but it is still illegal.

Well the Nally case set a precedent.

A nervous, jumpy farmer shoots a traveller who was suspected of robbing his farm.

But didn't the report say that he shot the guy twice, once from range and the second in an execution style where he was standing over the wounded robber?

If he got off, then I suppose it could be argued that anyone can get off, provided you're weapon is legal.

MarkAnthony

It resulted in a codification of the law rather than set a precendent. The law remained pretty much unchanged.

He 'Bet hime balck and blue like a badger' and then shot him IIRC.

Worked out so well for him in terms of safety though that he had to go in to hiding.

Weapon legality has nothing to do (very little to do) with the potential homocide case.

Frynge

stefanovich wrote: »

Come into my house with malicious intent and you will die.

Gob bless your daughter when she brings a boyfriend around.

aaakev

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

If I had to shoot, I'd aim for the legs. I don't think I'd be able to live with myself knowing I killed someone, criminal or not.

In that case dont shoot anyone in the leg especially with a shotgun because they will most likely die a lot slower....

marketty

eeguy wrote:

But didn't the report say that he shot the guy twice, once from range and the second in an execution style where he was standing over the wounded robber?

Sadly for Nally he wasn't a great shot. Shooting him once and reloading then shooting him again as he is retreating is nearly indefensible. The lesson from this case was blow the burglars head off with the first shot, preferably inside the house (messy unfortunately).

Don't forget to fire off one or two warning shots into the ground after too.

Also memorise this phrase 'I was in fear of my life'

In all seriousness though, like another poster said, I'd never have a gun in this house, too much danger of hurting an innocent party with a stray bullet. I'll leave the burglar blasting to the bachelor farmers!

Man11

If there is an intruder in your house , as the saying goes, shoot first , then fire the warning shot

eeguy

aaakev wrote: »

In that case dont shoot anyone in the leg especially with a shotgun because they will most likely die a lot slower....

If you're going to shoot, then you may as well shoot to kill.

Otherwise the burglar will probably sue you for injuries caused. Probably loss of income too since he's not so spry hopping over them walls.

Sparks

Suffering cats.

No, it is not legal to have a firearm for self-defence in Ireland.
There are two reasons why:
1) It is illegal to specify a reason on your FCA1 application form that you know is false - it is a specific offence (Firearms Act section 3(13)(a)) with an associated custodial sentence and fine (of up to 5 years and 20,000 euro);
2) The Gardai will not grant a firearms licence for the purpose of self-defence - this has been Garda policy for decades and is documented in the Commissioner's Guidelines on the implementation of the firearms act.

This is why this entire subject is flat-out banned in the Shooting forums where the OP originally posted.

Can you use one in extremis? Technically, yes. Practically no, not legally. You would have to keep the firearm outside of the safe you are required to have, assembled and loaded. That's contrary to your firearms certificate conditions, meaning that certificate would be void and you'd be in possession of an unlicenced firearm. And in the specific context that the OP stated openly in the shooting forum earlier, it would not only be illegal six ways from sunday, it'd be attempted murder because he planned the use of the firearm for the purpose of taking life.

BTW, just for the record, the number of complaints we got about this particular topic in the shooting forum was not negligible. To quote the mod message left when we closed this topic off in the forum there:

I'm closing this thread because the OP has some seriously scary notions of what it means to own a gun, illegal reason for wanting one, and frankly personifies the "not everyone should have a gun" statement.

goz83

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Can you point to caselaw or legislation or anything at all where it says that it is illegal to load your firearm and confront a burglar in your own home?

If somebody broke into my house, I'd go downstairs to check it out and I'd have zero intention of being unarmed.

See justifiable use of force.

No, I can't, because i'm not a legal eagle. I do know that a firearm will not be granted (except under very exceptional circumstances) if the supplied reason is for defensive purposes of self, or property. The only reasons licenses will be granted is for sporting and hunting use (afaik, hunting humans isn't legal). Mention self defense and say goodbye to getting a license.

So, if someone broke into my home and I took my gun from my safe, loaded it and went downstairs to confront the burglar(s), I would be fairly certain that a judge would see that as intent to cause serious harm, or death to the intruder(s).

Staying upstairs with the gun, I believe would more likely be acceptable if an intruder tried to come upstairs and I shot him/them.

Either way, it is still illegal use of a firearm, unless self, or property protection is on the license. You might get away with using it, but then, people get away with breaking lots of laws. I don't necessarily agree with the law in this case, but that's how I see it...coming from a non legal background.