Target shooting with rifle while not on an authorised range

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?

123shooter

ezra_ wrote: »

Thou shall not get caught?

Oh I see.........sounds like a good one.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Just my 2c on this;

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

WE don't know if it does or doesnt..THIS is the whole crux of the argumentt.We don't know, the Govt doesn't know, the Guards don't know.The idiot politician, now back being a barrister[God help us] who wrote this crap has said: "Well that not really what I meant, but it's not my problem now lads."The guy who has to enforce it is saying"Unofficially, off the record so long as you can do it safely and are not taking the piss out of it, and I'm not hearing any complaints..."
We have no legal definition of target shooting, we have no definition of zeroing in the legislation...IOW it is an unworkable clusterfuk that could be interpreted any which way to Sunday.So where does this leave us?? In limbo.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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

But what we're talking about here is not the practical, how-is-it-working-today situation, which is "I won't look if you don't get caught" (a state of affairs that lasts right up until someone complains because they got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning). See the situation with paintball markers for example, or the toy crossbows in the gadget shop or any one of a dozen examples.

What we're talking about here is if you were caught doing this by someone who's not minded to look the other way, what happens next?

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

What we're talking about here is if you were caught doing this by someone who's not minded to look the other way, what happens next?

If I was in that situation - I mean in the context of not abusing the definition of zero-ing, but observed in the act of zero-ing by a witness/guard - I would be appealing to common sense in the first instance and outlining my responsibility not to inflict undue suffering on quarry and the risk of wounding a quarry species by using a rifle that puts a bullet somewhere other than where the sights are pointing.

If a prosecution followed that, then I am the mercy of the law.

And I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to some of these prosecutions for obscure transgressions of the Firearms Act or legal grey areas than immediately meets the eye. Bit like Al Capone getting locked up for tax evasion, rather than any of the murders etc. associated with him and his coterie.

Grizzly 45

I concur.These cases just don't happen spontaneously.There is background, and history of people feckactin that we will never get to hear about in public.

Mississippi.

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.

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.

Who is deemed to be the range inspector in this instance though?
Would any member of AGS qualify?

Probably

Sparks

Mississippi. wrote: »

Who is deemed to be the range inspector in this instance though?
Would any member of AGS qualify?

Probably

Definitely not. The Firearms Range Inspector is a specific person, defined in law in the Act. The current FRI is a civil servant, not a member of AGS, working in the DoJ.

Mississippi.

Sparks wrote: »

Definitely not. The Firearms Range Inspector is a specific person, defined in law in the Act. The current FRI is a civil servant, not a member of AGS, working in the DoJ.

But I assume it does not have to be that specific person who catches you plinking in the field ?
The word of a guard would be enough to inform the inspector that it was going on?

cavan shooter

The way you lot are going there will be a complaint lodged by the Sports Coalition against ye to the guards for illegal activities....be careful  :angel:

Sparks

That specific person has the legal authority to enter the field (or house or car or hovercraft or anywhere, basically) at any time without a warrant and conduct a search.
I mean, if the local Garda caught you, that'd do as well, but we were talking about a hypothetical where you were on your own property, which AGS can't just rock up and search without a warrant (they can verify your firearm is there if that's where you said you'd store it, but that's not the same thing and I'm omitting it for the hypothetical).