Target shooting with rifle while not on an authorised range

Walter Mittys Brother

Been reading threads and it appears that the CJA 2006 made it illegal to shoot "targets" with a rifle or pistol anywhere apart from a Garda authorised range. (I think that's right?)

I have read the Act online and can only find a reference that if you want a rifle or pistol for target shooting you have to be a member of a Garda authorised range.

Can someone give me a link to where the restriction on location is please?

Sparks

Asked a while back after a TD broke that part of the law on national TV (and had his firearms confiscated for it if what I heard of the fallout was correct): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87734488

There are some further links in that post if you want to delve deeper.

cavan shooter

So just to be clear and in fairness, This pops up quite a lot and forgive me if I attract the annoyance of a couple of people but what about the sighting of a rifle prior to hunting, or even this scenario.

"My 22 is zeroed on the range, its has handy a place to do it but .....before I got after rabbits, I put a steel plate out the back field to check that its still through, make my adjustments and off I go"

If it is as SPARKS is Saying I think we need to lobby our organisations to have this clarified and amended to make it workable.

Sparks

There's nothing in any primary or secondary legislation that exempts zeroing CS, there never has been.
We had a letter from the Minister saying that zeroing wasn't the intended target of the legislation, but that's it; and that doesn't trump an Act of the Oireachtas. And we know people have fallen foul of this in the last few years.





The regulations he speaks of, as far as I can tell, never came to pass.

Luckysasha

I find it amusing that you can’t sight a rifle on your own land yet you can buy a box of clay pigeons and spend all day throwing and shooting them in your back garden so to speak. Personally speaking I have zeroed my rifle on my own land but I’m half a mile from a road and using a moderator. So unless the garda helicopter is passing overhead I reckon I’m safe enough lol

cavan shooter

That letter sparks is a very, very important letter. And while I agree with you that the SI doesn't specifically exempt zeroing a rifle, there is comfort in it.

I also know whom id have fighting my case if it came down to it.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

Asked a while back after a TD broke that part of the law on national TV (and had his firearms confiscated for it if what I heard of the fallout was correct): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87734488

There are some further links in that post if you want to delve deeper.

Thanks !

So, this part is what we're basing this ban on target shooting on?

the CJB are in Section 4B, part 4 :
(4) An inspector who suspects, with reasonable cause, that any place is being used for rifle or pistol target shooting may enter and inspect it, at any time and without prior notice.
and in the definitions in Section 1 :
“place” means a physical location and includes—
(a) a dwelling, residence, building or abode,
(b) a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,
(c) a vessel, whether sea-going or not,
(d) an aircraft, whether capable of operation or not,
(e) a hovercraft, or
(f) any other place whatsoever;

For me, and I'm no legal eagle, there is nothing there that could be interpreted as a ban on target shooting anywhere except a range.

ezra_

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Thanks !


For me, and I'm no legal eagle, there is nothing there that could be interpreted as a ban on target shooting anywhere except a range.

But that is the point - target shooting should only take place in an authorised range.

Cass

The bit you quoted just said that if a range inspecor finds target shooting or suspects it on any of the listed places they can enter without prior notice.

If, according to the bit you quoted, a range inspector turns up, inspects the area/premises the shooting is taking place on and determines it to be a range and you cannot provide the necessary licenses/authorisation and receipts for paid fees (not to mention conform to the guidelines for ranges as laid out in the SI) then any shooting taking place on said land would fall outside the remit/protection of the Act/SIs.

Walter Mittys Brother

ezra_ wrote: »

But that is the point - target shooting should only take place in an authorised range.

Big difference between "should" & "must only".

Cass wrote: »

The bit you quoted just said that if a range inspecor finds target shooting or suspects it on any of the listed places they can enter without prior notice.

Agreed.

Cass wrote: »

If, according to the bit you quoted, a range inspector turns up, inspects the area/premises the shooting is taking place on and determines it to be a range and you cannot provide the necessary licenses/authorisation and receipts for paid fees (not to mention conform to the guidelines for ranges as laid out in the SI) then any shooting taking place on said land would fall outside the remit/protection of the Act/SIs.

Agreed.

In your scenario the range inspector would have to determine that the area was being run as a "range" inferring a commercial setup? So if it's not a commercial arrangement then does it come under the legislation/SI's?

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

There's nothing in any primary or secondary legislation that exempts zeroing CS, there never has been.
We had a letter from the Minister saying that zeroing wasn't the intended target of the legislation, but that's it; and that doesn't trump an Act of the Oireachtas. And we know people have fallen foul of this in the last few year



The regulations he speaks of, as far as I can tell, never came to pass.

I find it strange that a letter from the Minister stating that zeroing wasn't intended to be part of the legislation can't be used in court as a defence should one get caught zeroing on private land...............................but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister. In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

In your scenario the range inspector would have to determine that the area was being run as a "range" inferring a commercial setup?

No. Firstly, there is nothing in the Act's definition of a Range that says it must be commercial in nature the way you're thinking of it; secondly the range inspector is only required to determine that the area was being used for target shooting. Not that it was being run as a Range (whether commercial or not).

And yes, this has been done in the (relatively) recent past. People have been hauled up on this point in reality, it is not some merely academic point.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

No. Firstly, there is nothing in the Act's definition of a Range that says it must be commercial in nature the way you're thinking of it; secondly the range inspector is only required to determine that the area was being used for target shooting. Not that it was being run as a Range (whether commercial or not).

True. Good points. But the section I highlighted above only give him/her power to enter premises, without warrant i assume?

Sparks wrote: »

And yes, this has been done in the (relatively) recent past. People have been hauled up on this point in reality, it is not some merely academic point.

"hauled up" ...... as in arrested or even questioned under caution?

Anyone been convicted?

ezra_

Sparks wrote: »

hauled up on this point in reality, it is not some merely academic point.

What court were they done in?

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I find it strange that a letter from the Minister stating that zeroing wasn't intended to be part of the legislation can't be used in court as a defence should one get caught zeroing on private land

It's not that strange, it's direct fallout from the primacy of the Oireachtas (which you'll remember is why shooters won the Dunne-v-Donohue case in the supreme court). The Act doesn't exempt zeroing; a letter from an ex-Minister says "whoops, I didn't mean that". In terms of legislation, the former is a law; the latter and three euro will get you a fancy cup of coffee.

Now where it gets strange is when you ask "what's target shooting in the eyes of the law", because there isn't a definition in the Act that bans it. There are definitions in secondary legislation, but I don't know if anyone's ever tested those. And honestly, I worry that one day someone will hire a barrister to mount a defence against a charge under the Act on the basis that the act is sufficiently vague as to be unconstitutional. If they won (and it's not immediately clear that they wouldn't), it would do a fair amount of damage to the Act itself and then there'd be a scramble on the government side to slap a patch in place, out of embarrassment if nothing else.

And I have never seen a good law put in place on that kind of timescale with that kind of pressure. I've never even heard of it happening. I wouldn't be surprised if we suddenly found half our sports or equipment made illegal as a result, whether by design or by incompetence in drafting (both of which have happened in the past).

but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister. In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Well, the argument is that the Minister has said it shall be so; the Act empowers them to do so (it does btw); and the only reason the law isn't passed there and then is the delays imposed by the civil service, which the law tends to disregard as being merely an implementation detail which doesn't affect the design.

It's when the same thing is threatened *before* the Minister makes a statement announcing such a ban that things make no damn sense.

Cass

I'm having issues with my internet connection and speeds are dial up slow. I'm getting reply notifications before i can get a reply posted so apologies for any overlap.

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

In your scenario the range inspector would have to determine that the area was being run as a "range" inferring a commercial setup? So if it's not a commercial arrangement then does it come under the legislation/SI's?

But there is no mention of commercial being any part of a range. That is something that you are inferring as being necessary to be considered a range.

If being a commercial entity was all that was stopping guys from setting up ranges without the need for licenses/authorisations i'm sure someone would have exploited it long before now and the DoJ would have created legislation to close any loophole.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I find it strange that a letter from the Minister stating that zeroing wasn't intended to be part of the legislation can't be used in court as a defence should one get caught zeroing on private land.............

I'd imagine it has to do with a Minister's "word" not superseding law. So if a minister gave you a letter saying he didn't mean for people to go to jail for robbing banks it wouldn't make robbing them legal.

..................but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister.

Fairly crap, isn't it. It's a stealth ban as can be seen by the exact scenario with semi autos. They're not banned or capped, but with the threat of loosing them people have stopped buying them.

In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Yup. Same thing as done with pistols.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

True. Good points. But the section I highlighted above only give him/her power to enter premises, without warrant i assume?

The section gives him the power to enter any place or vehicle or pretty much any area at all without warrant and to carry out a search at any time, yes. And it's only the enforcement part; the "this is illegal" part comes from reading sections 2(5), 4A and 4(2)(e) of the act together. A few parts of the firearms law in this country are like that - not always completely explicit (though parts can be) but fully defined by the boundaries laid down in other sections of the law.

"hauled up" ...... as in arrested or even questioned under caution?

I've never heard of anyone being arrested for it so far (I think we all would because the papers would latch onto that like a dog on a steak); I've heard of written orders to cease doing it or face prosecution and I've heard of firearms being confiscated (though I'm not sure if the licences were revoked in that case). I don't know if it's been brought to court in any case yet but I've not been looking out for that.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass, I more or less agree with you. So the actual definition of a "range" would be important? A lad in a field with a "target" pinned to a tree lying on the ground could hardly be construed as using/being on a "range"?

Sparks, a written order from who, the Super/Chief Super? Do they carry any legal standing? Bit like a solicitors letter. Bit worrying but it won't send you to jail. A Judge needs to sanction that

The threat of a prosecution is always there if you break a law, surely. These written orders must refer to what legislation they intend to prosecute under?

I'm intrigued by the "written orders".

Sparks

The definition of range is not important in this context WMB, because the range inspector in this context is looking for target shooting; not a range. That's the problem.

And a written order from the department IIRC; who are the people who'd bring the case. And in this context, that has more weight than a solicitor's letter (which as the old saying puts it, can be written about anything for about thirty euro - though I think prices have gone up since), because it's saying "based on this evidence we believe you are breaking this law and if you don't stop we will be prosecuting". And the evidence in this case had been publicly available (I don't know if it still is or if they took it off the website it was on afterwards, but I did see it at the time and I privately rated their chances in a legal defence of "it wasn't us" as being rather poor).
And no, the threat of prosecution is only there if you are *detected* breaking a law. Note that I have this information second-hand, so E&OE and all that; you'd have to FOI the details from the department if you wanted first-hand and I think they'd refuse the request at that. So don't ask me to name names because refusal often disappoints

Incidentally, if it had been AGS writing, I don't believe they would threaten prosecution unless you stopped; you'd just get a letter saying that your licence had been revoked under section 5 because the Superintendent believed you had broken the terms of your licence and you'd wind up in court over it if you wanted to disagree. If they were in the mood to just tell you to stop, you'd be more likely to get a phone call or a quiet chat or something else that leaves no written record (as the existence of such a record might preclude the possibility of just issuing an informal warning).

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

......but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister. In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Not that simple anymore, as it would be challenged right away in both supreme and EU courts by pan EU shooting organisations as a violation of EUHR section 5 and 7. Yes, you can ban stuff, but anyone who you deprive of their previously legally licensed and owned property must be compensated for it at current at the time value.So the govt cant say,"well its only worth 50 quid".Comes from Herr Hitler &Co robbing valuable art and property of a certain religious group back in the 1930s, and why the UK handgun ban became such a fiasco. It's why the EU went on this issue to grandfathering and the same reason here in Ireland.The govt doesn't like paying compo to its sheep, as it would open a vast Pandora's box of compensation cases in this State since its foundation.

Sparks

Yes, you can ban stuff, but anyone who you deprive of their previously legally licensed and owned property must be compensated for it at current at the time value.

You'd be laughed out of court when the government pointed out that you had not been deprived of your legally owned property, but just the licence which you have no legal right to (and it was pointed out that the EU law on this explicitly permits member states to enact far harsher laws on firearms than the EU baseline regulations).

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Cass, I more or less agree with you. So the actual definition of a "range" would be important? A lad in a field with a "target" pinned to a tree lying on the ground could hardly be construed as using/being on a "range"?

I believe range is defined/explained in the SI and possibly the Act (cannot cite or be bothered to research it) as is the criteria for building one and running one.

My comment about range vs club is really about semantics and the use of the word. When discussing it here or face to face we often use words that may not be exactly what they mean in terms that are correct, specific or legal.

Quick example when discussing reloading i've heard lads call bullets, heads. It's not the right use of the word and head means the head of the case, but if someone says to me what heads am i using i know what they mean. Same with ranges and clubs. I've often mixed and used both words when referring to my range. Granted one may be more correct than the other but in the context of talking to someone i tend not to be as concerned about the wording i use as long as the person knows what i mean.

While all of that is fine for us in day to day stuff in legal terms it has different and sometimes much more meaningful interpretations.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

............ Yes, you can ban stuff, but anyone who you deprive of their previously legally licensed and owned property must be compensated for it at current at the time value.........................The govt doesn't like paying compo to its sheep, as it would open a vast Pandora's box of compensation cases in this State since its foundation.

This comes back to a discussion on here about ownership vs authority to possess. They can ban the ability to license/possess it, but to strip you of your ownership is another ball of wax and why we never see outright bans, but such stealth bans as mentioned above including grandfathering.

As i said before in relation to cars. If they wanted cars gone in the morning they could stop issuing driving licenses. The car is still your property, you just cannot drive it. Obviously guns are different in that you cannot possess one without a license, but i think you get my point. If they ban the ability to license a firearm the gun still remains your property you just cannot use/possess it.

As for the EU stuff, i don't think i understand it as well as you do, but EU does not supersede state law when state law is stricter/harsher, etc than EU law. Also does the bit your quoted:

EUHR section 5 and 7

Refer to ECHR articles 5 & 7 regarding freedom of liberty and security? If so how does that apply to this scenario?

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

And it's only the enforcement part; the "this is illegal" part comes from reading sections 2(5), 4A and 4(2)(e) of the act together.

Sorry, which Act?

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

The definition of range is not important in this context WMB, because the range inspector in this context is looking for target shooting; not a range. That's the problem.

Oh my head

So the crime is/would be target shooting? or is it target shooting while not on an authorised range?

So then the person/s would have to be deemed to be target shooting, the location would have to be deemed to be a range and the charge would be that they were target shooting on a range that isn't authorised?

Sparks wrote: »

And a written order from the department IIRC; who are the people who'd bring the case. And in this context, that has more weight than a solicitor's letter (which as the old saying puts it, can be written about anything for about thirty euro - though I think prices have gone up since), because it's saying "based on this evidence we believe you are breaking this law and if you don't stop we will be prosecuting". And the evidence in this case had been publicly available (I don't know if it still is or if they took it off the website it was on afterwards, but I did see it at the time and I privately rated their chances in a legal defence of "it wasn't us" as being rather poor).
And no, the threat of prosecution is only there if you are *detected* breaking a law. Note that I have this information second-hand, so E&OE and all that; you'd have to FOI the details from the department if you wanted first-hand and I think they'd refuse the request at that. So don't ask me to name names because refusal often disappoints

TBH, is a written order from DOJ won't mean you've been deemed guilty with a possible criminal record, fine and/or some jail time. Not that I'd want to receive one !!!!!!

Sparks wrote: »

Incidentally, if it had been AGS writing, I don't believe they would threaten prosecution unless you stopped; you'd just get a letter saying that your licence had been revoked under section 5 because the Superintendent believed you had broken the terms of your licence and you'd wind up in court over it if you wanted to disagree. If they were in the mood to just tell you to stop, you'd be more likely to get a phone call or a quiet chat or something else that leaves no written record (as the existence of such a record might preclude the possibility of just issuing an informal warning).

I'll take your word on that. A friendly Garda warning would stop most of us alright but still doesn't make what you were doing illegal.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

But there is no mention of commercial being any part of a range. That is something that you are inferring as being necessary to be considered a range.

Fair enough but to clarify I'm coming at this from the point of a lad, on his own, shooting, safely, a "target" with his licenced rifle, with permission on private land with a paper target pinned to a tree with no other infrastructure eg firing point, shed etc

extremetaz

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

with a paper target pinned to a tree

Whilst there are many points which are already under discussion here - and by folk far more knowledgable than myself, I have a peripheral concern about this particular practice.

Any tree suitable for use as a backstop has taken a great many years to get into that condition - knocking great big bloody lumps out of it for nothing more than your own amusement is, in my estimation at least, more than a little out of keeping with the general ethos of responsible fieldcraft.

When you're zeroing in your rifle please consider using a backstop which can either be easily repaired or replaced.

Walter Mittys Brother

extremetaz wrote: »

Whilst there are many points which are already under discussion here - and by folk far more knowledgable than myself, I have a peripheral concern about this particular practice.

Any tree suitable for use as a backstop has taken a great many years to get into that condition - knocking great big bloody lumps out of it for nothing more than your own amusement is, in my estimation at least, more than a little out of keeping with the general ethos of responsible fieldcraft.

When you're zeroing in your rifle please consider using a backstop which can either be easily repaired or replaced.

Don't worry, I'll be careful when I'm cutting it down with my chainsaw

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sorry, which Act?

The 1925 act, as amended.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks, I looked at sections 2(5), 4a & 4(2)(e) here

http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1925/act/17/front/revised/en/html

Can't see how they'd prosecute someone for having a few shots with their rifle outside an authorised range everything else being legal eg permission, safety, licenced etc.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Oh my head
So the crime is/would be target shooting? or is it target shooting while not on an authorised range?

The latter.

So then the person/s would have to be deemed to be target shooting, the location would have to be deemed to be a range and the charge would be that they were target shooting on a range that isn't authorised?

No. The person would have to be deemed as target shooting (which effectively boils down to shooting at anything other than an animal when using a rifle or pistol); and the location would have to be deemed to not be an authorised range (under section 4A or presumably 2(5)). Whether the location is a range or not is not relevant - it could be an range whose paperwork isn't done or it could be the middle of grafton street as far as that particular chunk of the law is concerned (obviously other chunks of the law would be involved as well if it was the middle of grafton street).

TBH, is a written order from DOJ won't mean you've been deemed guilty with a possible criminal record, fine and/or some jail time. Not that I'd want to receive one !!!!!!

This is correct and the phrase "hauled up", you'll notice, is not spelt "convicted in a court of law and sentenced". You'll also note that "bad stuff" doesn't start with being deemed guilty, your life becomes hassled a long, long time before you hit that stage.

Also WMB, if you want a completely formal discussion on this, I'll start by pointing out that I'm not looking to pass the bar in the next hundred years and don't care to pay for the insurance to practice and give a professional legal opinion. My comments here are based on having had my head stuck in that ****ty piece of legalese for far too many years and the discussions with people in the DoJ and AGS and elsewhere over those years about the law and its implications and interpretations and implementation. I'd bet my house on my actions but I wouldn't bet my toenail clippings against your actions if you treat what I say as formal legal advice

When I get a spare decade I'll write my notes up all nice and formal-like for the law review and then you can take a copy to your solicitor and have his insurance cover the risk of using it in court

I'll take your word on that. A friendly Garda warning would stop most of us alright but still doesn't make what you were doing illegal.

That's not what a section five rescinding means.
If the local Super yanks your licence under section 5 you can take him to court about it and lose and still not have done anything illegal. Reference section 5(a) and 5(e) for examples.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks, I note your statements and assure you I will not quote what I've been told her as my defence if I end up in front of the Mr/Mrs Justice XXXXX

In the absence of a conviction we're in limbo realistically. And NO I don't want to be the test case

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sparks, I looked at sections 2(5), 4a & 4(2)(e) here
http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1925/act/17/front/revised/en/html
Can't see how they'd prosecute someone for having a few shots with their rifle outside an authorised range everything else being legal eg permission, safety, licenced etc.

So, first off, you have to be detected. That's an axiom for this hypothetical.

Now you've been discovered by the range inspector engaging in target shooting outside of an authorised range (as laid down in section 4A) and that means you're breaking the terms of your licence. That doesn't just give AGS grounds for a section 5 revocation of your licence, it means your licence was null and void for those shots, which means you were in possession of an unlicenced firearm for that time and because you were detected, there's a witness who was entitled to be there without a warrant (meaning that they can testify about it in court). And now we're into section 2 without the protections outlined in 2(5) (punishable by jail time and/or fines).

Now you still have to be charged and the charges proved in court; but practically speaking this is the point where you're neck-deep in slurry and sinking. You now have to engage a legal team, which is going to start expensive and get worse; even if you win, you won't get all of that money back -- and because this isn't a JR, it's a criminal case, you may get none of it back at all even if you win because the rules around costs are different for criminal cases and it's entirely at the discretion of the court whether costs are awarded for either side. You have to explain what's going on to your family and to your employer before they find out from the papers, and that will be just an absolute barrel of monkeys; and you probably won't ever get granted a firearms cert ever again because of section 4(1).

Even if you get away from the jail time associated with section 2 (or some other section, depending on the context of where you were shooting - did you give someone else a go without the coverage of 2(4)(d)? were you on an informal range meaning charges of reckless discharge because the place wasn't up to the standards for 4A? etc, etc), you're still in a world of ****.

Walter Mittys Brother

What terms of my licence would I be breaking?

Under Section 2(5)

(5) ( a ) The Superintendent of any district may authorise in writing the possession, use or carriage of firearms or ammunition in that district in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs ( d ), ( e ), ( f ), ( g ) F16 [ , ( h ) ] F17 [ , ( j ) or ( k ) ] of subsection (4) of this section F18 [ , or of any component parts of a firearm, ] during such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the authorisation.

( b ) A Superintendent shall not grant an authorisation under this section unless he is satisfied having regard to all the circumstances (including the provision made or to be made for the storage of the firearms and ammunition to which the authorisation (if granted) would relate and the supervision of their use) that the possession, use or carriage, as the case may be, of firearms or ammunition in pursuance of the authorisation will not endanger the public safety or the peace.

( c ) Where it is proposed to grant an authorisation under this section in respect of a F19 [ … ] club or a range or other place referred to in paragraph ( d ) of subsection 4 of this section, the authorisation shall be granted to an officer of the club nominated by the club or to the person in charge of the range or other place as the case may be, and where there is a contravention of a condition imposed in relation to the grant of such an authorisation and the contravention is proved to have been committed with the consent or approval of or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of the person to whom the authorisation is granted, that person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

( d ) A Superintendent may impose in relation to the grant of an authorisation under this section such conditions (if any) as he considers necessary to prevent danger to the public and, where a condition is imposed, it shall be specified in the authorisation.

( e ) An authorisation under this section may be revoked at any time by the Superintendent of the district in which it is granted.

( f ) A person who contravenes a condition imposed in relation to the grant of an authorisation under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.

What condition would someone have broken?

Sparks

You need to read further back up section 2 WMB. 2(1) and 2(2) say you can't possess or use firearms or ammunition except in accordance with your licence or in one of the specific exempted cases listed in the other sections; those are the conditions you would have broken as your licence would be void for those shots.

Section 2(5) grants AGS the authority to designate "ranges" (actually just places, it's a bit generic on purpose) where some of the exemptions to 2(1) and 2(2) (like our old friend 2(4)(d)) can take place. 2(5) these days is only given after 4A is granted by the FRI (at least in the vast majority of cases); it used to be the sole means by which ranges were authorised. In theory you could get 4A authorisation and be refused 2(5) but in practice that never happens and the two operate in lockstep. I have heard of cases where the FRI recommends 2(5) be granted without 4A but it's never the FRI's call, it's always down to the Super.

It's possible to be shooting in a place with 2(5) coverage without 4A authorisation; but it's not currently possible to be doing that in the context we're talking about (where you're zeroing). You'd be at a funfair shooting stall (if we still have any) or you'd be at an airgun range that was personally vetted by the FRI and recommended to the local super (I think there are two of those, but I'm not sure). Either way, you're outside the scope of the hypothetical.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

You need to read further back up section 2 WMB. 2(1) and 2(2) say you can't possess or use firearms or ammunition except in accordance with your licence or in one of the specific exempted cases listed in the other sections; those are the conditions you would have broken as your licence would be void for those shots.

If I look for a licence for target shooting it states I have to be a member of an authorised range (4)(2)(e).

I know you've pointed me to various sections of the Act & advised I read them in conjunction with each other to get to the stage where they will ban me target shooting outside an authorised range.

Sorry, I can't agree with you on this.

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Fair enough but to clarify I'm coming at this from the point of a lad, on his own, shooting, safely, a "target" with his licenced rifle, with permission on private land with a paper target pinned to a tree with no other infrastructure eg firing point, shed etc

And if that is all it is and no one else knows and you don't post videos of you doing it on Facebook, Youtube or any other social media that is where it'll end.

Most Gardaí use common sense, but all the above is predicated on the fact you get caught. If you don't abuse it, most likely it'll go unnoticed and even if you were caught chances are you won't be charged. However it's no harm to know what could happen and then let each person decide for themselves.

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sorry, I can't agree with you on this.

On the target shooting outside a range being illegal? Break it down into steps that we know:

• To target shoot you must be a member of a range
• A range must abide by the law and SIs set out for them including but not limited to the necessary licenses/authorisations and fees paid
• A range inspector can walk into any land thought to be used as a range and if they deem it so (to be a range) close it down, charge and seek prosecution for it.

What part of these steps makes you think it's not illegal? no need for quoting of acts, etc. just what part do you think makes it ok to target shoot outside a range?

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sorry, I can't agree with you on this.

I'm so not the party you (well, technically your legal team) has to convince of that...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

You'd be laughed out of court when the government pointed out that you had not been deprived of your legally owned property, but just the licence which you have no legal right to (and it was pointed out that the EU law on this explicitly permits member states to enact far harsher laws on firearms than the EU baseline regulations).

They would be laughing on the other side of their faces in the EU court..As you will be dealing with loss of use of property not the loss of a liscense.A wholly different matter.It has come up before in the EU courts on the fact that if a group of people lose a license to an activity that renders its property that was legal before useless or not usable it is the same effect...

But don't just take my word on it.You can read it all on Firearms United website in or about this time last year,and you could ask Msr Alan Alexis as he is in town this week, as to why suddenly the EU rolled back very quickly on the issue of converted full auto to semi-auto firearms when they realised that of there are literally millions of them throughout the EU community??
Put it like this, if it was soo easy, why haven't the Irish govt done it??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Put it like this, if it was soo easy, why haven't the Irish govt done it??

They did. As group actions they did it once in 1972 and once in 2008. As individual actions, they do it every single time they refuse an application for a firearms licence or revoke one (because in those cases, you remain the legal owner of the firearm if you owned it before the refusal or revocation but you are not compensated for the loss of the use of it).
And when the EU regulations and national law both say they have a right to do so, I can't see you winning the case in any court.
So let's turn the question around; if it's so easy to get compensation, why hasn't any Irish shooter ever done it?

Grizzly 45

From talking to the current main man from the dept on this issue.I get the following impression the stance and unwritten word with it here is this.
Make and take from it what you all will.

1] If you can zero safely on your own property and grauntee no shots leave the property, and not have the neighbours giving out about rounds hitting their house, cars, property, go ahead.WITHIN REASON.IOW you are actually zeroing the gun, not taking the urine of burning a box of 100 and saying it's zeroing. If you are not on paper or on target within 20 shots, something must be wrong with your setup.

2] If you and your mates are down every Sunday morning blazing away in a quarry or whatever from dawn to dusk, with rounds flying off into wherever from richoects then you are taking the urine and can expect problems.

3] Actin the bollix like shooting at balloons floating over a bog, that you have no permission to be on at large distances as a certain person not to be named here, found out will get you into trouble.

4] The CRO is not going hedge hopping about the countryside looking for people out zeroing their guns , all day every day.

Simple fact is USE COMMON SENSE, when shooting, and have a good backstop, temp or natural don't be an utter Dick and abuse what is a tenuous toehold to be able to zero your gun on your property for the rest of us, and don't bother the man with complaints from irate neighbours or non-shooting civilians and we should be all ok.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

They did. As group actions they did it once in 1972 and once in 2008. As individual actions, they do it every single time they refuse an application for a firearms licence or revoke one (because in those cases, you remain the legal owner of the firearm if you owned it before the refusal or revocation but you are not compensated for the loss of the use of it).
.

All of this below is speaking on an EU level not a national level, and in this context, we are talking of loss of property, not loss of "privilege" of usage.
[
QUOTE]So let's turn the question around; if it's so easy to get compensation, why hasn't any Irish shooter ever done it?

Last part first.How many Irish shooters up till now have the money, lobby group, or connections to take a case to the EU??

And when the EU regulations and national law both say they have a right to do so, I can't see you winning the case in any court

Correct when it comes to legislation on the control and issuance of permits.Not correct on the deprivation of usage by denial of a permit to do same. If you are denied a permit to drive, for whatever period of time you are not required to sell or lock up your car in a dealers garage.You can hold onto it, or sell it at market value.No govt official can demand you sell it or buy it off you for cents on the Euro.This is why I keep saying article 7 is so important in this debate.If the activity was legal b4 the rescinding of permits and not actual confiscation of property, it is considered the same and is illegal under the EU legislation.Again this goes back to the 3rd Reich pogroms against" undesirables".Deny them licenses to practise their trades or possess certain items or goods.

They did. As group actions they did it once in 1972 and once in 2008.

In 1972 we weren't members of the EEC[at the time] and even if we were there was no proper and formal recognition of EUCHR,if they existed in the EEC.We had a totally different mindset back then too of not making a fuss, and the priest, Garda and Govt knew whats best for us, so those brave souls that did open their mouths about getting their stuff back were hammered down as stubborn nails. 45 years later a lot has changed on the legislative front in Ireland,[thankfully] and trying a stunt like that wouldn't be as simple anymore.

And in 2008, despite whoever claiming credit for last-minute midnight deals with that crippled creep Aherne..Why didn't he carry thru on a total handgun ban??He was big enough an a££hole to do it... Unless they thought we wouldn't fight them in the courts, or the judiciary would side with the govt?? There has never been a proper explanation what happened in that meeting, but I suspect it was because of the compo issues.

I'm no EU law expert on any of this by any shot.I am just going on by what some genuine EU constitutional lawyers are saying on this issue who are shooters gun owners are saying on the Irish and EU situation and what legislation could be interpreted at on an EU court level.

Thing is people, we are not alone anymore in having to deal with this on a national level.We are part of the EU, and what affects us affects the other shooters of the EU and vice versa.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

From talking to the current main man from the dept on this issue.I get the following impression the stance and unwritten word with it here is this..

See your problem.

Also will he vouch for you if such a case made it to court? I doubt it, and i don't care if the leprechaun in the Aras gave you a signed letter to say the same it's worthless once any Act says it's illegal.

If caught you have two options and none of them are actually of your choosing.

• The Garda is in a good mood and lets you off with a warning.
• The Garda is in a bad mood and your done for a firearms offence (loss of guns, fine, possible jail, etc)

Grizzly 45

Cass, you know in Ireland the unwritten word carries a lot more weight than the written betimes along with the 11th commandment
As I said"Take from it what you will".

Cass

Except when it comes to backing up that by standing by you.

You know what they say about verbal contracts and not being worth the paper they're written on.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

And if that is all it is and no one else knows and you don't post videos of you doing it on Facebook, Youtube or any other social media that is where it'll end.

Most Gardaí use common sense, but all the above is predicated on the fact you get caught. If you don't abuse it, most likely it'll go unnoticed and even if you were caught chances are you won't be charged. However it's no harm to know what could happen and then let each person decide for themselves.

Social media posts ................ heard a few were posting silly stuff on it alright & drew some attention.

I agree on the don't take the piss & piss off the neighbours. I'm a shooter & I wouldn't want that kind of noise for too long, too often either

Cass wrote: »

On the target shooting outside a range being illegal? Break it down into steps that we know:

• To target shoot you must be a member of a range
• A range must abide by the law and SIs set out for them including but not limited to the necessary licenses/authorisations and fees paid
• A range inspector can walk into any land thought to be used as a range and if they deem it so (to be a range) close it down, charge and seek prosecution for it.

What part of these steps makes you think it's not illegal? no need for quoting of acts, etc. just what part do you think makes it ok to target shoot outside a range?

As I said I'm not convinced after studying the legislation that it would secure a conviction against someone target shooting outside an authorised range. I'm no legal eagle, of course, and I'm not going to do anything to test my theory. If we get a test case we'll know who is right

I'll just add that my job entails using & interpreting legislation. I'll also add that I've not always been correct

Cass

Before Facebook and all the other "look at me" social media things people were getting on with their shooting and not bothering anyone. nowadays people feel the need to publish every aspect without a single thought as to what they're doing. In the last week alone i've watched videos from three guys. One was videoing his 7yr old son or nephew shooting, and getting, a stag. The second was a lad videoing his 12 yr shooting his first fox with his [the father's] shotgun. The last was 5 lads on a hill shooting what looked like a few hundred rounds of ammo from about 9 different guns at gongs, bottles, etc. All in Ireland and all offenses and reasons to loose their guns/licenses. I mean FFS, whatever people do is their own business but putting your hands out to be slapped is just daft.

As for the laws, well with 19 firearms acts, 2 EU directives and 61 SIs if you can understand all these and say we don't need to worry about target shooting outside of a range as it's completely legal then, and not being a dick, you are a legend as the people that drafted it cannot say that.

The firearms acts are so bad, so convoluted, and "mashed up" they need a complete re-write. There is so much "hopping" from one act to another to an SI just to try and nail down one point that it's almost impossible to say with any certainty if anything is defintivel or not. Also your interpretation, like mine, is worth feck all. The guy on the bench is the one that'll determine it and if he goes against you then it's a costly chance to take. I mentioned in another thread of a few scenarios in the past 12 months that i've witnessed or read about of lads being done for "sure it'll be grand" laws including 25 round mag with 10 rounds loaded in a rimfire, shining a lamp across lands with no permission, etc. IOW like the target shooting/zeroing issue. It'll be grand till it's not and by then you're fecked.


For the time being i'm not going to take that chance, as my understanding is it cannot be done.

yubabill1

Just my 2c on this;

Clearly, the legislation in force doesn't allow zero-ing outside an authorised range.

I don't know if ranges allow hunters needing to zero to use their facilities on a per-day basis, however, even if they did the hunter sometimes has to check zero/re-zero in the field as a contingency.

My main point is that the hunter has a duty to dispatch any quarry without undue suffering. Surely this is very important.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

From talking to the current main man from the dept on this issue.I get the following impression the stance and unwritten word with it here is this.
Make and take from it what you all will.

I've heard the same thing from the same source Grizzly, but (a) he doesn't outrank a Minister and the Minister saying the same thing counts for the square root of nothing if you ever annoy someone enough to wind up in court over it; and (b) he's saying (in essence) that the problem does not exist if you are not detected target shooting outside of an authorised range. And that's not the case in this hypothetical:

Sparks wrote:

So, first off, you have to be detected. That's an axiom for this hypothetical.

Also, like I told you once before on this:

Sparks wrote: »

We'd share the same opinion of the man, but -- it's a very dangerous idea to have the character of the office holder be the sole safeguard against abuse of the powers of the office

Nobody in the civil service stays in the same job for an infinite amount of time; the next office-holder may decide he likes the idea of hedge-hopping in search of target shooting...

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Except when it comes to backing up that by standing by you.

You know what they say about verbal contracts and not being worth the paper they're written on.

Cass that a given in this country..And that is why the11th commandment is soo important in Irish life.:)

Sparks, I agree with you 100 on those points.However, taking it from the man who has to implement and works with it on a day to day basis he is going to know the reality and the practicalities of going to enforce it on the ground.It's the same as poaching here.Yes, it's illegal, but it still continues because there are not enough resources to enforce this legislation. NPWS will only act if they have a "sure thing", that can be prosecuted as will AGS or any other dept these days because of budgetary constraints.Or simply lack money and people to investigate.

Put it like this, what would be easier to prosecute?Sparks firing ten shots from his air rifle every three months out in the middle of nowhere to zero?Or the Danny John brothers an pals going shooting down to the Ballynafek quarry every Sat morning and shooting everything in sight from dawn to dusk and then posting it on FB??

I'm not advocating law-breaking or a do as you want attitude, I'm simply saying, in reality, a lot of this is unenforceable on an individual case by case simply because of lack of manpower and resources.We are supposed all adults here able to know what is taking the urine out of a situation, or trying to work with vague legislation to ensure our equipment is working right.

123shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Cass that a given in this country..And that is why the11th commandment is soo important in Irish life.:)

I dont even know what the others are, so what is the eleventh?

ezra_

Thou shall not get caught?