ammo storage.

kelslat

Lads I just want to know from a legal point of view where should the ammunition be stored? In the gun safe or elsewhere?

Luckysasha

I'm sure it's like everything else to do with gun licenses, it's up to the local FO and what he insists on. For instance I have a .22lr rifle in a safe along with ammo. But when the local Sargent came to visit me for my pistol license application he insisted that I had a separate safe for the pistol and a separate lock box for ammo for both the rifle and the pistol. So now I have 2 safes and a lock box in the house all separate from each other.

kelslat

Luckysasha wrote: »

I'm sure it's like everything else to do with gun licenses, it's up to the local FO and what he insists on. For instance I have a .22lr rifle in a safe along with ammo. But when the local Sargent came to visit me for my pistol license application he insisted that I had a separate safe for the pistol and a separate lock box for ammo for both the rifle and the pistol. So now I have 2 safes and a lock box in the house all separate from each other.

It's annoying not knowing exactly, because sure enough if I leave it separately I will be told to put it in the gunsafe and if i leave it in the gunsafe I will be told to store it separately.

Luckysasha

Best bet if your in any doubt is to ask your local FO and he can advise you. After all he is the guy you have to satisfy if he decides to pay you a visit

kelslat

Luckysasha wrote: »

Best bet if your in any doubt is to ask your local FO and he can advise you. After all he is the guy you have to satisfy if he decides to pay you a visit

Very true! Thanks luckysasha.

Cass

kelslat wrote: »

Lads I just want to know from a legal point of view where should the ammunition be stored? In the gun safe or elsewhere?

I believe, and am completely open to correction, it's a case of common sense.

I cannot find any Act or SI that specifically states where and how ammunition should be stored. They focus on the firearms but not the ammo.

So by common sense i mean don't leave it in the gun, and if possible not in the same safe as the guns. If at home use a lock box or separate safe, and when in the car use another lock box away from the firearms.

If anyone else can find specifics i'd like to know, cause i couldn't.

Luckysasha wrote: »

Best bet if your in any doubt is to ask your local FO and he can advise you. After all he is the guy you have to satisfy if he decides to pay you a visit

The FO?

The CPO (Crime Prevention Officer) is the one who does house calls. Well for me anyway. Never had any FO, over the years, call out to check my house. Ever.

Luckysasha

Luckysasha wrote: »

But when the local Sargent came to visit me for my pistol license application he insisted that I had a separate safe for the pistol and a separate lock box for ammo for both the rifle and the pistol. So now I have 2 safes and a lock box in the house all separate from each other.

The Sargent that payed me a visit to check my security and storage facilities is the FO I deal with in my local station. Never had the CPO call on me yet.

Grizzly 45

All I can find is it must be stored seperately and securely from the firearm.

Doesn't say how or how many meters apart or anything like that. So in practise putting it in a locked draw wherever is securely storing the ammo. Buy a large steel surplus ammo box[the kind that holds 20mm shells,]and put an after market padlock system on it .
Or be real cheap and drill a hole in the locking hasp area .Put a large bolt thru and drill the bolt for a padlock,and you have a transportable secure ammo box tha'ts good to go.

Cass

Luckysasha wrote: »

The Sargent that payed me a visit to check my security and storage facilities is the FO I deal with in my local station. Never had the CPO call on me yet.

Mad how things differ. I've never had any FO call out to me as i said above. They always tell me to expect the CPO if an inspection is needed.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

All I can find is it must be stored separately and securely from the firearm. .

That an SI or part of an Act? Or just from the Commissioner's Guidelines?

Luckysasha

On the subject of things that differ. I planned on buying a bigger safe when I get around to buying a shotgun so I can house my rifle, pistol and the new shotgun in the one safe but my FO was horrified at this idea. His train of thought is separate guns in separate safes. But I know lads in different districts that have one big safe with all their guns and ammo stored together and their FO is ok with this

Cass

I had 13 guns in three safes.

No law to say each gun MUST have its own safe, but then again the people that signed off on the sh*t sandwich that is the security SI left usat the mercy of the Super. Highlight Super, not FO. If the Super wants a safe per gun, then it's a safe per gun.

However i'd just leave it, and not mention it again to him.

Luckysasha

I wanted a one safe for all solution because I'm running out of rooms to put safes. Poor Mrs house will go mad if she has to share another wardrobe with a shotgun!!!!!!!!

Cass

As said if he asks have you a safe for the gun just say yes. No need to tell him it's sharing that safe. You are not breaking any laws by having multiple guns in the one safe.

As for the FO. Sounds like many before him. Has their own set of beliefs and is trying to apply them as law.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

That an SI or part of an Act? Or just from the Commissioner's Guidelines?

You know yourself how guidelines can become LAW in some peoples in power minds.:)

Cass

They can imagine all they like, but unless it has a Minster's signature it's only a recommendation, and an unenforceable one at that. If a Garda ever stopped you, raise the issue, etc. What would that look like in court.

Judge: "What law has this man broken?"
Garda: "None"
Judge: "Riiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhhhtttttttt............................."
Judge: "Any offence committed?"
Garda: "He had ammo"
Judge: "Ah, and no license?"
Garda: "Erm, nope. He has a license"
Judge: "So he had too much?"
Garda: "Nope, under his certificate limit"
Judge: "Where was the ammo?"
Garda: "In a box in the boot of his car"
Judge: "And this caused what threat to the public?"
Garda: "Eh, none, but he had them"
Judge: "So he had a license, was not over the limit of his certificate, had them in storage out of public view, and not accessible by anyone?
Garda: "Yup"
Judge: "Case dismissed".

So we continue to do our due diligence, be legal, and respectful but not at the expense of pandering to non existent laws.

silverdecks

Super places extra condition on licence regarding storage of ammo. Cert holder not do that then Super revoke licence. The additional conditions can pretty much be anything within reason. Was told this by FO before in Cork County!

Cass

The Super can place extra (not any) condition s/he likes on the licensee however it must be in keeping with the law.

IOW there must be legislation to support what they demand. So an extra safe for the ammo, a safe per gun, etc is all within their remit as the wording of SI307/2009 says "Minimum security". These two words have effectively given a blank cheque to the Supers.

So essentially there is no law to say this, but the SI gives them a certain level of "whatever we say", however there is a line drawn, and we now have the courts as a means to appeal anything deemed overly restrictive/punitive. I mean if the super asked for a Challenger 2 to drive to the range, and machine gun turrets around the moat that has sharks with lasers on their heads. At that point you could think this is a bit much and appeal.

It all goes back to the balls that is the entire range of firearm acts, and SIs. Vagueness, interpretation, etc. are all to common not to mention, as was said above, guidelines being used as law.

BattleCorp

The Chief Super put a condition on my licence that I must keep my rifle in a steel box bolted into my car and also never leave the gun in the car unattended when going to and from the range.

I've no real problem with it apart from:

What if I get a lift to a competition with someone else? They couldn't be expected to fit a steel box into their car. Am I legally obliged to have a car to adhere to the conditions of my licence?

Secondly, supposing I am driving a long distance to a competition, do I strap the rifle over my shoulder when I stop at Supermacs for a bite to eat? I can't see that going down too well in Supermacs.

Some conditions, while well meaning, aren't always practical.

silverdecks

Cass wrote: »

The Super can place extra (not any) condition s/he likes on the licensee however it must be in keeping with the law.

IOW there must be legislation to support what they demand. So an extra safe for the ammo, a safe per gun, etc is all within their remit as the wording of SI307/2009 says "Minimum security". These two words have effectively given a blank cheque to the Supers.

So essentially there is no law to say this, but the SI gives them a certain level of "whatever we say", however there is a line drawn, and we now have the courts as a means to appeal anything deemed overly restrictive/punitive. I mean if the super asked for a Challenger 2 to drive to the range, and machine gun turrets around the moat that has sharks with lasers on their heads. At that point you could think this is a bit much and appeal.

It all goes back to the balls that is the entire range of firearm acts, and SIs. Vagueness, interpretation, etc. are all to common not to mention, as was said above, guidelines being used as law.

Forgive me but where does it say that the additional conditions must comply with laws or even have a basis in law as opposed to a condition i heard of that the firearm must be carried in cover whilst in public area and not to shoot within 500 metres around schools?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Some conditions, while well meaning, aren't always practical.

While not for one minute advocating breaking them, how are they enforceable? Who knows about them?

The conditions are on the grant letter, not the license. That means if a Garda stopped you, checked your license it'll tell him nothing, and he'd have to check pulse to confirm.

silverdecks wrote: »

Forgive me but where does it say that the additional conditions must comply with laws or even have a basis in law .............

Seriously? Not being smart, but is that a serious question?

An Gardaí are peacekeepers, and enforcers of the law. Enforcers, not legislators. If you were to be arrested it is because you have breached some law and you are entitled to be told which law you have broken. If they charged you and brought you to court they must show what law you have broken, iow act, section, etc. . If there was no law broken and no charges to answer to then any arrest is pointless.

If An Gardaí could do anything they wanted without the need for legal basis they would be brown shirts.

................ as opposed to a condition i heard of that the firearm must be carried in cover whilst in public area

Offensive weapons act 1990, brandishing a weapon in public. IOW a threat to public safety.

.......... and not to shoot within 500 metres around schools?

Reckless discharge of a firearm from section 8 of the 1990 offensive weapons act.


So both those conditions have a basis in law and are concerns the Super had when issuing the license. If you were to do either you would be guilty of an offense, regardless of the conditions of your license, but with those conditions on your license you are definitely guilty of an offense.

silverdecks

It is a serious question and I am only asking as to who states that the conditions have to have a basis in law? Not all actions of man or stupidity are covered by law. The additional condtions can basically put any condition on the cert and how could you get it off the cert save a judicial reveiew!

There have been some erroneous conditions put on firearms holders but have they all had a basis in law? Lock boxes bolted in car, i have heard of one condition where it stated that if there was a change in conviction status it was on the cert holder to inform local FO as they wouod not know until renewal for 3 years.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

While not for one minute advocating breaking them, how are they enforceable? Who knows about them?

What you say is true about none of the conditions being written on my licence but if I didn't have the steel box in the back of my van, I wouldn't like to be going up to the Gardaí and telling them that my restricted rifle was stolen out of my van while I was parked in Obama Plaza eating a feed of Supermacs.

It wouldn't take much investigating by them to get around to the question of "Where's the locked steel box you were supposed to have in the back of the van?

I do have a steel box in the back of the van by the way. It's a second hand gun safe and I have it chained to the chassis.


So, my next question. Are conditions such as the secure transport conditions on my licence legally enforceable? Not that I'm going to disobey them, I'm just curious. Could I be prosecuted if my gun was stolen from the van and I wasn't using the steel box that was part of my licence conditions?

Cass

silverdecks wrote: »

It is a serious question and I am only asking as to who states that the conditions have to have a basis in law?

The reason i ask if its serious is because it's such a fundamentally known point. The Gardaí enforce the law, they don't write it.

Not all actions of man or stupidity are covered by law.

The absence of legislation does not make something legal, nor illegal for that matter.

The additional condtions can basically put any condition on the cert and how could you get it off the cert save a judicial reveiew!

The condition must have a basis in law or it's not enforceable and you're right about using a judicial review to remove any conditions.

There have been some erroneous conditions put on firearms holders but have they all had a basis in law?

They have to, this is what i'm saying. Take you examples:

Lock boxes bolted in car,

Security which relates to public safety and preventing the theft of firearms which may be used in criminal activities.

i have heard of one condition where it stated that if there was a change in conviction status it was on the cert holder to inform local FO as they wouod not know until renewal for 3 years.

A conviction does not necessarily preclude someone from having a firearm/license, but it can. While any conviction would be recorded on PULSE and in the courts, as renewals only occur every three years the Super would not have this conviction brought to his/her attention until renewal time. So a person that may have been fit to possess a firearm, who is now not, would still have access to it.

So to a degree perfectly reasonable, if not a bit odd as it places the onus on the licensee to inform the Gardaí to do their due diligence.

I don't know how else to explain what i'm trying to say. Conditions must be based in law. It's why we have so many of them. A Super cannot put the condition of only to be used in his kitchen while hoping on one foot, because he feels like. It must have a basis in law.

Rimfire Shooter

Cass wrote: »

Offensive weapons act 1990, brandishing a weapon in public. IOW a threat to public safety.

Brandishing is not the same as carrying though. For years I carried my rifle in public & nobody seemed to feel threatened. I use a slip now in case some twat gets frightened because I'm legally carrying my firearm on the way to the field across the road.

Cass

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

Brandishing is not the same as carrying though.

Quite correct. Although it is subjective.

I use a slip now in case some twat gets frightened because I'm legally carrying my firearm on the way to the field across the road.

And that is exactly what i mean about subjective.

I used to walk down to a local spot for some pigeon shooting. Recently they built 18 houses along that road (very quiet rural area) and the last time i walked it i got the "curtain twitchers".

Now i use a case and leave it stashed in a stone wall while i go shoot. I'm not brandishing my firearm, but if a member of the public feels intimidated or threatened (the current snowflake epidemic) i'm going to be o the sh*t end of the stick trying to defend myself.

silverdecks

Thats what i was getting at cass whilst there is the offence of producing a weapon there is no law against carrying it that i can see.

This was my point about conditions not always veing based in law. I understand your points fully though.

Unfortunately in this country from what I can see there are directions used which have lefal backing but then others that are more grey to regulate firearms owners.

Cass

silverdecks wrote: »

Thats what i was getting at cass whilst there is the offence of producing a weapon there is no law against carrying it that i can see.

But the Super is not saying you cannot carry the firearm, only that is must be covered.

It's a really pedantic point, but a valid one. If the Super said you can not carry your gun, regardless of it's "covered status" then that would be taking the piss and contrary to the license he issued saying you can.

This was my point about conditions not always veing based in law. I understand your points fully though.

But it has a basis in law as i said above about brandishing a firearm in public. Once it's covered you cannot be accused of brandishing it. Hell even toy guns can be held to the same standard. If there were no law to break then the Super cannot impose his/her will simply out of desire/personal opinion.

Unfortunately in this country from what I can see there are directions used which have lefal backing but then others that are more grey to regulate firearms owners.

I have no doubt, and fully agree with, that there are some ridiculous examples of abuse of power, ignorance towards the law, and as i said above trying impose personal opinions as law. Then there are actual laws that make as much sense as these personal opinions.

It's a Holy mess and one that every association, shooting body and even the legislators to some extent have called to be overhauled. The attitude seems to be while it's ticking along, however roughly, it's working so no need to spend time on it, yet.