NARGC's "arrangemeent" with An Gardaí

Cass

Bit of a long story but i'll keep it short.

Some time ago, almost 2 years, i was contacted by a friend of a friend that was having trouble with an application. The Super was being especially troublesome to the point of, what i would call, vindictive. I last spoke to the chap about four weeks ago when he informed me that he still had not got his license (refused again).

I then got a call from him about 10 days later (two weeks ago). He had contacted the NARGC, i told him they might be able to help or steer him towards someone that has legal experience as he is a member, and they sent him out a form. He had rang me tto ask about the form. It was for a review or sorts.

Now the only thing i'd heard about was the civilian authority the Minister had promised us over 18 months ago, but that still was in the planning stages and not set up. So i was curious how this form could help the NARGC deal with An Gardaí.

I've since seen that the NARGC has signed or agreed to some sort of agreement or accord, as they call it, with An Gardaí.

Now first off let me say i think this is brilliant. The idea anyway. A route to be able to deal with troublesome Supers, and also weed out problematic applicants which avoids the need for court appearances is a great step forward.

1. However where does this leave the planned civilian review board?
2. Is it still going ahead?
3. Will it be separate to this agreement?
4. Is this a stepping stone until that is in place?
5. Is it only for NARGC members?
6. Have other groups done the same?
7. The NARGC are the sport coalition so are all groups in the sc covered?

I know this is new so answers may be thin, but as i'm not involved in the NARGC anymore i'm on the outside looking for answers.

Sparks

8. Exactly when did the Gardai get the legal authority to deviate from the Firearms Act and act to bring a civilian company into the process without the Minister's direction; and didn't we see a supreme court case (Dunne) about this already?

Cass

Never considered that as i viewed this as a similar project to the planned Civilian board. However the Minister will appoint those, and she has the authority to do so, i presume?

bluezulu49

Cass wrote: »

.........
I know this is new so answers may be thin, but as i'm not involved in the NARGC anymore i'm on the outside looking for answers.

Text of the notice sent to NARGC club secretaries is here --> http://nargc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NARGC-GARDA-Press-Release-Jan-2017.pdf

Too long I think to copy and paste here.

Bluezulu49.

Cass

Holy sh*t. Who's ass were they kissing on paragraph 4.

"Dropping the application through the letterbox is simply not good enough. You should meet the FO, and go through the application to find any shortcomings.".

Can whomever wrote that see daylight yet?

Granted there are some top quality Gardaí out there and they do the job perfectly. A great blend of professionalism, and keeping to the letter of the law. As for the rest.

Between FOs that are morons, not there, loosing paperwork, know less than we do, think they're the Super, refuse to accept applications unless you alter something they don't like, and in general being a dick i wonder who they were trying to kiss ass to when they wrote that segment of the article.

The majority of complaints i've seen and heard have been the fault of the FO. Not nby guess, but their actions have been wrong. Once they were shown to be, or bypassed the application process went along smoothly.

So perhaps the NARGC want to rethink their attitude towards their members and address some of the existing issues surrounding the made up job that is the FO.

RossiFan08

bluezulu49 wrote: »

Cass wrote: »

.........
I know this is new so answers may be thin, but as i'm not involved in the NARGC anymore i'm on the outside looking for answers.

Text of the notice sent to NARGC club secretaries is here --> http://nargc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NARGC-GARDA-Press-Release-Jan-2017.pdf

Too long I think to copy and paste here.

Bluezulu49.

Just reading over that, I noticed the storage requirements are missing the section regarding external locks for 5 forearms or more. Is this an omission or has this been changed

Cass

It seems to be a scaled back version. They are missing other things too like the "secured to solid wall" for level 2, the locks as you mentioned for level three, and the most important part, that all measures are minimums and subject to change.

RossiFan08

Cass wrote: »

It seems to be a scaled back version. They are missing other things too like the "secured to solid wall" for level 2, the locks as you mentioned for level three, and the most important part, that all measures are minimums and subject to change.

I find that worrying as it doesn't take much to add the few lines in

Sparks

It doesn't so much seem to be a new line of communications as it is the NARGC saying they'll help members fill out the FCA1 correctly. Which, to be fair, they should have been doing for years, but meh, at least they're doing it now.

But from that NARGC document, it doesn't look like this is the same thing as the civilian appeals process the Minister was talking about, it just looks like exactly the same thing every NGB has been saying since the FCP was founded - if there's a problem, call us, we'll talk to the FPU about it because we're sitting next to them on the FCP.

Cass

From what i've gotten, in the lads case i mentioned in my OP, he filled in his form, what the problem was, why he was refused and will submit it for the NARGC to check.

If they feel he has been treated wrongly they'll act on his behalf, non legal i'm presuming, and if they feel he was treated fairly then, well nothing i guess.


The civilian appeals board as discussed by the minister is meant to be a legally binding alternative to court?

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

The civilian appeals board as discussed by the minister is meant to be a legally binding alternative to court?

I'm not sure about the legally binding part in a case where some Super gets completely set on ignoring the appeals board. That's something that would require a change in the Act to bring about (the same way that making the District Court judges the persona designata did). Totally could be done that way mind you - but I've not seen the details of it yet so your guess is as good as mine. But without that change, it'd be more of a norm than a law (the way that supers tended to grant licences if a judicial review case told them to reconsider their decision - they weren't legally required to do so, but most of the time they just granted it as if the court had made the decision for them).

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure about the legally binding part in a case where some Super gets completely set on ignoring the appeals board. .

That is why i asked about the legally binding part. There has to be something to "make" the Super adhere to the ruling of any board.

As you said with such a board a Super can choose to ignore their recommendation completely forcing someone to bring it to court and start the process all over again.

IOW it would make the board somewhat impotent perhaps even pointless if the ruling could not be, looking for the right word but failing, enforceable?

cavan shooter

My read of it...if you have a problem with a license issue contact X in NARGC. It is I hope an attempt to normalise relationships which had been fought for a while. I don't think they are trying to circumvent anyone's right to appeal etc..I think it's welcome I hear they also met with NPWS just after Christmas.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

That is why i asked about the legally binding part. There has to be something to "make" the Super adhere to the ruling of any board.
As you said with such a board a Super can choose to ignore their recommendation completely forcing someone to bring it to court and start the process all over again.
IOW it would make the board somewhat impotent perhaps even pointless if the ruling could not be, looking for the right word but failing, enforceable?

It gets more complex the more you think about it. So, they could change the Act to put the board in between the Super and the DC and the whole problem of an entrenched Super goes away, but there's the flip side of this to consider; if the board rules against the applicant, what's the applicant's right of appeal?

It can't be "the board said no, you're done'' because the board isn't a court, the whole point of it is to be an arbitration body that isn't a court or the Gardai. So you can't take away a person's right to due process in a court, they have to be able to appeal the ruling to someone who isn't a civil servant or the other side of the case.

So either the board's ruling isn't final and you can go on to the DC as you do with a Super's decision now; or you say it's final and the only appeals process left is the Judicial Review route in the High Court, which is where we were stuck for decades and which would be a huge step backwards both for us (because the High Court sucks as a route to appeal an eighty-euro licence) and for the courts (because the High Courts are massively overworked at the moment, to the point where we had to have a referendum to set up a separate appellate court just to ease the workload).

Personally, I think they'd want to amend the Act to give the board some teeth, but leave in the route to the DC for both Super and Applicant because otherwise we wind up taking a massive step backwards. After that structure is in place, it becomes a cultural problem within the Gardai to accept the appeals board, but since they're on the FCP that'll be drafting the rules for how this all work, half that battle is already won. And if the DC starts to see board decisions being appealed as being appellate cases instead of application cases (ie. there's already been a process and now we're looking for errors in the process rather than errors in the application itself), then that'll help things along enormously as well.

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

It is I hope an attempt to normalise relationships which had been fought for a while.

It does look that way, and that's something that's desperately needed, so it's probably a good thing.

berettaman

Lads,


For reasons that we all know there had been a very tense relationship between the NARGC and the Gardai in previous years and the most common form of communication was through legal process.

The Chairman and the Executive of the NARGC have made huge efforts to reform the Association from within and change how we go about our business when dealing with those outside the Association.

This meeting was important because bridges needed to be built with the Gardai and dialogue is important.

There are issues regarding substitutions etc that needed to be raised with the Gardai. NARGC does not expect to be in a position to provide a solution to every licence problem but if a situation can be solved with a phone call instead of a legal barrage then surely that is a good thing? (Cheaper anyway.) If a legal is the only ooption in the end, then so be it.
And some times members need to be told that what they are looking for is off the wall.:D

While the NARGC are indeed a part of the Sports Coalition there is a feeling that this was required to put our members concerns across. The "disconnect" between NARGC and S.C. is a matter for another day.;)

NARGC Officers also spoke to NPWS regarding various issues. This needed to happen and should be encouraged.

NARGC Chairmans door is open and he is willing to talk to anyone in the interests of growing the sport.

Compared to where we were this can only be a good thing.

Have to say fair play to the NARGC on this one.

Tackleberry.

I'd have to think, that this NARGC process must have a very quick turn around time, or would you need to be also engaging your solicitor so as to not miss the 30 day deadline, something that I have experienced with the application made at 32 days, only to get to court and for the state to point this late application, my case could not be heard.. 30 days is pretty tight if your considering to exhaust all options now available.

cavan shooter

With respect and don't get me wrong, its great to see the NARGC opening up channels in all directions, but i'm also scared that this this mean we will be further sold down the road.

The minutes of the SC meeting does not make good reading regarding activities we are involved in and the "Shared concern" comment about competency of shooters, link this with the ballistic testing, lead shot and proofing still to raise its head. ..To borrow a good old Irish saying Lead shot hasnt gone away you know.....
If a lead shot ban comes in for example we will all be buying new guns or doesn't it make a lot of existing guns unsaleable? yest these are things that are very quiet at the moment and the fact the SC is made up of ranges and gun dealers, I think the wolf is minding the sheep

I know the NARGC has been busy over the last year but I do hope the NARGC will be a bit more proactive in standing up for their "members" interests and make hard decisions when its needed.

berettaman

I think that the NARGC is acting from a very shooter orientated viewpoint.

I do not think the Exec or Gov Body of the NARGC would go along with the S.C.s "shared concerns". We shall soon know at the next G.B. meeting.

I think there will either be a realignment of the S.C.s priorities or the NARGC will do its own thing..just my opinion...

cavan shooter

I hope so...when you look at what they are they don't represent and have not been representing the man that pays into the NARGC fund. I told our lads in Cavan this over Christmas and handed them the minutes if the SC to prove it.

gunny123

berettaman wrote: »

some times members need to be told that what they are looking for is off the wall.:D

Could you expand on this please ? Do you mean the nargc could support supers/chief supers decision to not licence something ?

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

That is why i asked about the legally binding part. There has to be something to "make" the Super adhere to the ruling of any board.

As you said with such a board a Super can choose to ignore their recommendation completely forcing someone to bring it to court and start the process all over again.

IOW it would make the board somewhat impotent perhaps even pointless if the ruling could not be, looking for the right word but failing, enforceable?

It's another added in step to see if whatever problem can be sorted out without going the legal route.Sort of like martial counseling before you hit the messy process of Irish divorce .So IOW you are going to need some seriously knowledgeable heads on this who know both the firearms laws and technical aspects of firearms as well.Going to be intresting to see who gets chosen for that role,as pulling out a copy of "Jane's infantry WEAPONS" is not going to be qualification enough for this.;)

cavan shooter

Support ...might be too strong of a word...but let's be honest alot of NARGC members remember the thousands of (hundreds of thousands of euro) spent on pistols and it's maybe about time the NARGC focus on what affects them and only them.

Hunters don't need semi auto 9mm pistols. Yet it was the NARGC members money that was used to fund these cases.

Grizzly 45

Yeah ,has the NARGC now got a "new" position on things like;

Reloading ammo for hunters both shotgun and centrefire?

Still think IPSC ,cowboy action shooting,etc a "game of nutters",and any possibility of some support on getting legislation changed to re allow both?

Possibly clarify, on how deep in the Brussels manure their parent organisation FACE actually is to their members?[So deep in fact that previously pro hunting politicans are drifting to the antis,because FACE is not keeping their eyes on the ball due to internal strife.]

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

Support ...might be too strong of a word...but let's be honest alot of NARGC members remember the thousands of (hundreds of thousands of euro) spent on pistols and it's maybe about time the NARGC focus on what affects them and only them.

Hunters don't need semi auto 9mm pistols. Yet it was the NARGC members money that was used to fund these cases.

I shoot game, stalk and also shoot target pistol and target rifle. You seem to think the categories of different shooters are in their own little camps and never the twain shall meet.
It was a similar attitude that caused the mess in the first place back in the 70's. "To hell with pistols and fullbore rifles so long as i can keep my trusty oul double barrel".

berettaman

The Shooting fraternity, we are a "broad church" so to speak..We can cater for a broad swathe of shooting sports but the G in NARGC stands for game.

Gunny asked about off the wall... some members would may look to challenge a correct decision. I am not going to comment on the past but we cannot take challenges for the sake of it. If a guy has been refused something for a correct reason he should be told so.

If a super is acting the tool and a challenge is needed so be it. It is about knowing when to talk and when to fight..(i.e. legal Challenges)

cavan shooter

gunny123 wrote:

I shoot game, stalk and also shoot target pistol and target rifle. You seem to think the categories of different shooters are in their own little camps and never the twain shall meet. It was a similar attitude that caused the mess in the first place back in the 70's. "To hell with pistols and fullbore rifles so long as i can keep my trusty oul double barrel".

No Gunny ...I'm just tired of the NARGC funding all this.

cavan shooter

berettaman wrote:

The Shooting fraternity, we are a "broad church" so to speak..We can cater for a broad swathe of shooting sports but the G in NARGC stands for game.

And about time.!!

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

Could you expand on this please ? Do you mean the nargc could support supers/chief supers decision to not licence something ?

They have explicitly stated this to be the case in the past. And no NGB in its right mind would ever rule out this option.

Tackleberry.

berettaman wrote: »

The Shooting fraternity, we are a "broad church" so to speak..We can cater for a broad swathe of shooting sports but the G in NARGC stands for game...

I Think the NARGC Fund was started for the Game Shooting lads among us, I also enjoy game shooting but I am also a keen target shooter, but since our Island has put some distance and time free of the period known as troubles which now for the most part in the past thank god, we now see large calibre rifles for deer stalking and short firearms for target shooting being licensed, so I'm guessing here but the NARGC just grew with deer shooters and target shooting looking for Insureance cover using there fund hence they now cover all types of shooting interests.
I'm a member of a target shooting club where the NARGC provide the cover at the range, so I'd feel hard done by with paying my fee if there not lovers of target shooting as much as any other shooting sport, at sometime a pistol shooter needing there help using this new method will appear I hope he is as welcome as the game shooter...

Grizzly 45

Comes from having a shoddily worded contract Cavan Shooter and no future foresight. It states that the NARGC legal fund would fight for members whose "firearms" were giving problems with liscensing with AGS[ broadly speaking].it did not say,"double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles used for game hunting only." So NARGC was obligated and proably still is, to cover the legal cost of such cases,or face multiple lawsuits on breach of contract.
Choices are in future.

Get competant lawyers to read these membership conditions, and put in reservation to change and modify T&C ,and state specifically WHICH firearms are excluded from this insurance.

Hopefully Firearms United and when the Ireland branch is set up will provide as de riguer a limited legal service up to the high court maybe,but certainly to the DC and individual personal liability insurance with its membership,to anyone who owns a firearm irrespective of type.