Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Cass

MODERATOR NOTICE

I've moved the entire garda firearms thread into this, the off topic thread.

The initial topic was ok enough as an exercise in speculation and discussion but it is wandering into territory that has nothing to do with sports shooting.

Therefore to prevent the thread being locked or deleted I've moved it here to allow the discussion to continue outside of the parameters of sports shooting discussion.

That DOES NOT give "Carte Blanche" to discuss anything. RTKBA stuff is still off limits, and other aspects of the original thread are bordering on inappropriate even for the off topic. There were also aspects of back seat modding which have been deleted.

The thread will be monitored and if anything crosses the line it will be removed. Please read the forum and thread rules before posting to avoid this.

In future if someone has an issue with a thread PM me directly or report the thread and allow the Mods to deal with it.

otmmyboy2

For the day that's in it ;)

https://youtu.be/JJ4HgMDjAzc?si=CAx1cHN7HnyBU62x

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122970962#Comment_122970962

Considering that the vast majority of armed police forces carry 2-3 mags(1 in the gun, 1-2 spare on the belt) and the norm for a modern centrefire handgun is 15+ rounds, it is far from unusual.

The fact that 2-3 mags is the norm only serves to diminish the impact of loading an extra round. 46 vrs 45 rounds on a person, could make the difference. But slimmer and slimmer chance.

and while carrying with one in the chamber is common. That’s subdivided into those that changer one and reload 1 round, and those that simply chamber one from the mag.

Uinseann_16

Not guilty

Honestly was expecting this to be a guilty and a push more more restrictions around firearms particularly handguns even 22s

https://www.thejournal.ie/diarmuid-phelan-murder-trial-verdict-keith-conlon-6585094-Jan2025/

Feisar

How can ya justify shooting someone with a handgun presumably licenced for range use only? Why did he have it on him?

tonysopprano

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123014202#Comment_123014202

From many years interacting and dealing with the DPP and prosecutors, I find most of them to be absolutely useless and I wouldn't hire them to deal with a parking ticket.

But we as firearms owners, are required to have an intricate knowledge of the laws pertaining to firearms, and can sometimes see sense lacking in ordinary people when dealing with this subject. What we know and see as black and white, sometimes seems grey to to Joe Soap, as in this case. Smoke and mirrors (case and point being the introduction of different types of ammo and the ballistics of such, highlighted in closing arguments by the prosecution and then dismissed/withdrawn by the judge in the jury charge.

Have not seen a full transcript, but never once was the why he had a pistol nor that it was in breach of his FAC to be possessed/used/carried off a licenced target shooting range or on his way to/from same

Cass

Perhaps the firearm charge(s), if any are applicable ,will be dealt with separately?

Cass

MOD HAT ON FOR THIS ONE

While ye are free to discuss the case please be mindful of technical contempt of court. This is, roughly speaking, being overly critical of the Justice, outcome, etc. and as such any comments going that direction will be removed pending review, to make sure we stay on the right side of the law.

We want as open a discussion as possible so be careful not to cross the line, as "free speech" is not so free, unfortunately.

JP22

One possibility - long shot yes, but perhaps the FAC for pistol also stated/allowed dual use of same, as in vermin control on his lands.

Without knowing the exact FAC conditions, we are all just guessing.

Feisar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123014597#Comment_123014597

Perhaps

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123014202#Comment_123014202

The charge was murder/manslaughter. The defence was that he was defending himself from threats made previously. If it is accepted that the killing was lawfully in self defence, then it does not matter that it was not licensed for that.

Same way it’s not permissible to use a knife, bat, hands to kill somebody m, generally. But could used to lawfully defend yourself.

Any firearms charges, are not really material to the murder/manslaughter charges.

That said I was surprised he got off from the initial info I heard. But didn’t follow the court details.

Feisar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123016412#Comment_123016412

Like yourself I was surprised he got off but I also didn't follow the case to closely. My point was he had no justification to be carrying a handgun other than to use as a weapon.
Either way, what sort of egit gets aggressive with someone who has a gun?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123016491#Comment_123016491

I completely agree. He should not have been carrying it. And you could argue that it relevant as it suggests he was the type to be “ready for action”, Walter Mitty-esque.

dalalada

The correct decision we should all be smiling esp those of us who are landowners. Well done to the jury and the defence counsel and Mr Guerin.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123016491#Comment_123016491

I wouldn't agree with the premise there was no justification to be carrying the gun. A handgun is no different under he law to a shotgun or rifle and we carry them for whatever purpose we applied for them.

We don't know under what conditions the license was granted or what reason he gave when applying, either way he was licensed to have it in his possession and to use it.

The misunderstanding that a handgun can only be granted for range work is wrong. The statute sets out that the applicant must be a member of a range, not solely use it there and if you apply for it under multiple reasons and it's granted without any conditions barring any of those reasons then you're free to use it as you wish.

Once again I'd be cautious about making broad sweeping statement such as no justification or no reason for having it on him. We don't know the circumstances and as such we must go on the basis it was completely legal until or if shown at a later point that it wasn't.

Feisar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123017378#Comment_123017378

I appreciate what you are saying however I think it's a bit of a stretch. He'd have had to have applied for it for vermin which seems an unlikely reason to be granted a permit. But as you say without the facts I'm making sweeping statements.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123024641#Comment_123024641

To be fair, it would have been application for Target shooting (he was club member, with a competition record), with the additional addition reason of vermin shooting.

Cass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123024641#Comment_123024641

Improbable, not impossible.

As said above the law only states you must be a member of a target range, not that that is the only reason to be granted one.

So apply for target shooting, as a member of a target range, and tick vermin on the fca1 and if it's granted with no restrictions or conditions (prohibiting vermin or whatever the second reason is) and it's granted for those reasons.

What actually is the status in this case is not known, nor will it be, so it's all speculation but my comments are not specific to this case but as a broader generalisation of what the laws says and my interpretation of it.

As always I stand to be corrected.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123024745#Comment_123024745

Makes sense, in theory. If somebody went that route, would they have any record of being granted for vermin? Should they be queried when in the field.

I'm thinking also about the convoluted/implicit way the Wildlife Act covers to licenses for hunting.

Cass

The FCA1 is your "proof". It's why I always recommend scanning, photographing or in some way copying all applications and renewals prior to submitting them.

If you apply for any firearm for a purpose and it's not only granted but granted with no conditions prohibiting any reason given when applying then it has been granted for the reasons laid out in the application.

As for the wildlife act, yes it does throw up some hurdles. A 22 pistol might be granted for vermin but not for other shooting as the wildlife acts prohibit certain methods of hunting as well as prohibiting and/or curtailing certain calibers for certain types of shooting.

I'm not justifying the use of a handgun for hunting for practical reasons but moreso the ability to license one for activities other than target shooting.

otmmyboy2

There are also a number of 22lr handguns which are currently licenced for humane dispatch, and a few which are held on authorisation for that purpose, so he may not have had a reason on his FCA1 for vermin control or similar but but instead an authorisation allowing him to use it for humane dispatch/pest control/vermin/etc.

Esel

Is it possible that the handgun was licensed for personal protection?

Cass

There is no way to know as such licenses are rare and never disclosed.

It'd be speculation to say any different.

dalalada

….was there any mention of where the rifle was when the revolver was used

Cass

MODERATOR WARNING

Going to say this now to avoid the mass deletion that will follow if it's allowed to continue.

There is to be no discussion of RTKBA on this forum. None.

It doesn't exist, there is no allowance in the law for it from the position of applying for a firearm for such a reason.

Grizzly 45

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123031790#Comment_123031790

AGS would be extremely reluctant to issue such here as it would more than likely be an AGS issued and recorded as such firearm, and also who in the chain of command up to and beyond the Cheif Comissioner and Minister for justice would be held accountable for issuing an untrained civillian with a Garda firearm if it was put to use? Or actually lost or stolen,which happened to a couple of politicans back in the 1980s? Always Be Coverd and Cover Your Ass is the watchword,so somthing like this would be a nightmare for them.

Even using a personal firearm in such a role would cause conuptions in the Park and Kildare st for the very same reasons.

Feisar

Ultimately challenging someone with a gun isn't a wise policy.

cosieman

Connolly Station got shut down last night Garda everywhere apparently a man with a antique shotgun was not threathening anybody. Does anybody know was the gun in a case or slip?

otmmyboy2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123038042#Comment_123038042

“He didn’t do a great job covering it up on the train," one source said. “He had something wrapped around it, but it wasn’t inside a bag or anything. To the naked eye, it would look like a gun. He carried in on the train and it was placed on the seat beside him.

Quote from one article, so sufficiently poorly concealed that it was identifiable.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123029469#Comment_123029469

That's what I suspected. It seems like very shakey grounds for the shooter, possibly by design.
I agree with what you are saying that it's on them to condition the grant if it is not approved as applied for. But I also think that a photocopy of a form could have doubt cast on it in court. Who is to that it wasn't changed etc.
They should really issue something more solid, like a receipt of application details, or even clarity on the license.

If you apply for any firearm for a purpose and it's not only granted but granted with no conditions prohibiting any reason given when applying then it has been granted for the reasons laid out in the application.

Agree. And it's also granted for any reasons that are generally permitted (eg shotgun granted for hunting includes clays.)
But I vague remember some aspect of the Wildlife act, regarding hunting permission not being align to either the firearms act, or to how licensing works in practice. It's defendable, as that's the status quo - but again shooters left exposed.

As for the wildlife act, yes it does throw up some hurdles. A 22 pistol might be granted for vermin but not for other shooting as the wildlife acts prohibit certain methods of hunting as well as prohibiting and/or curtailing certain calibers for certain types of shooting.

Can shoot birds with a pistol. But birds are not technically vermin.
I think you'd be covered for rats (with rat shot) and other actual vermin.

I'm not justifying the use of a handgun for hunting for practical reasons but moreso the ability to license one for activities other than target shooting.

Was completely clear that were weren't justifying it.
I also thought of was humane dispatch mentioned above. Heard heard of NPWS being license like that.