Kildare case. Restricted shotgun.

Cass

A recent court case in Kildare saw the refusal by a Chief Super to grant restricted licenses to two men for an UTAS shotgun. The guys took the CS to court and won.

The CS said the guns were "more" dangerous because of how they look (God give me strength) and they posed a danger to the public.

Luckily the judge, taken precedence from previous high court cases i'd presume, said the claim of threat to the public does not count for much unless such a threat can be shown.

Judge Desmond Zaidan has been in the papers before. He seems to apply a good and common sense approach to the firearms act and law as a whole.

One thing puzzled me though. The CS in his questioning said that while any person can own up to 20 firearms,

Chief Supt Roche said that while the law allows for a person to have up to 20 firearms....................,

................ and then continued on about the amount each man had. Where is it written that a person can only own 20 firearms? I know few if any actually do, but i've never heard of and was always under the impression the amount is "limitless".

Sparks

Correct, there's not even the concept of a limit in the law beyond the need for secure storage and that's pretty recent.

Cass

I realize in the grand scheme of things, relating to the case, this might seem like a small even pedantic point, but why was the CS not corrected by either the opposing counsel or the justice? Not expecting an answer here, but its these little small things that give AGS the gumption to believe they can impose their own set of laws as they see fit.

Heck even this case. The CS says the gun is more dangerous because of how it looks. I mean my God, from a legal point of view did he ever think that would fly? I'm not talking about pistol grips and more than three shots because as restricted shotguns those points are moot, but more dangerous because of how it looks.

He explained that while the men in question have showed themselves responsible with firearms, the public could be put in fear when they see these guns. He voiced fears in court that the Utas gun is a more dangerous type of gun.

He said: "The size and shape of the gun gives rise to apprehension."

Also the fact that these guys have 11 guns between them and shown to be responsible and competent gun owners, but because the gun looks scary, they're all of a sudden not competent enough???????

Jesus wept.

gunny123

Also, how do you quantify how one gun is more dangerous than another ? They are inanimate objects.

This whole red herring of looks is something that needs to be consigned to history. Is an airsoft copy of a minigun lethal ? No its a toy, but looks the part.

Blue and walnut guns like the mosin nagant, lee enfield, arisaka and garand probably put more people in the ground, than all the tupperware black plastic ones by a fair old margin.

g00167015

Ahhhhhh, it's the "bejayzusidon'tlikethelookofthatyoke" clause of the AGS's imaginary version of the firearms act once again.

Also where did this "up to 20" mullarkey come from. I should hope that the State's Counsel makes a formal apology for their client deliberately misleading the Court at the next available sitting before that Judge.

.......and all this rather blatant ignorance of the law from someone who has been seen fit to be appointed a CS.

It's a great organisation, they even give you a free jacket as well.........

Lord give me patience.


Grizzly might recognise this chap's name by now

clivej

Great news for two lads I know and shoot with and one is a gun dealer. They still won't beat me with my sh!te Mossberg 88 lol
Again the press tell of them applying for Shotguns but show a photo of an assault rifle. Sh!te from the press as usual.

https://www.kildarenow.com/news/naas-district-court-judge-grants-licences-chief-supt-describes-military-assault-rifles/220399

Melodeon

clivej wrote: »

Great news for two lads I know and shoot with and one is a gun dealer. They still won't beat me with my sh!te Mossberg 88 lol
Again the press tell of them applying for Shotguns but show a photo of an assault rifle. Sh!te from the press as usual.

https://www.kildarenow.com/news/naas-district-court-judge-grants-licences-chief-supt-describes-military-assault-rifles/220399

That IS the shotgun in question.
Or at least, the pump action variant, the UTS-15: http://www.utas-usa.com/pumpactionshotgun
The semi-auto, the XTR-12, is more AR-like: http://www.utas-usa.com/semiautoshotgun

I don't know which version was in question in this case, but both conform to the strictly defined terms and specifications of the Idontlikedalookodat classification.

solarwinds

Seems to me that Tricky from another post should walk straight into his CS and ask politely for his rifles to be handed straight back to him. The looks of a firearm have just been thrown out of court so I would imagine his CS should think about taking this further.

Sparks

Thing is, there literally is an "Idontlikethelookofdat" clause, it's right there in the Restricted List's SI:

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic
firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

(note that it doesn't even require that the firearm in question be a rifle, so you can legally have a shotgun that's an assault rifle under the law).

And if a firearm is defined in law as an assault rifle under that definition, it's restricted.

It's not like we didn't point out the problems at the drafting, but it's still in there... I just don't know of any case law where it wasn't - like this time - thrown out of court.

J.R.

gunny123 wrote: »

This whole red herring of looks is something that needs to be consigned to history. .

I don't agree with refusal over "looks scary" for one minute...crazy deduction....and am not trying to justify it with scenario below.

Many people base a lot on looks.......two guys walk into a shop...one in a 3 piece suit & well groomed...the other is leathers, covered in tattoos & piercings with shaved head..............the majority with deduct that "suit" is sound & "leathers" is hassle...based on looks alone......before they even open their mouths...that's the way the public is.

Sparks

A three piece suit? Banker. Trust that one as far as you can throw a truck.

Grizzly 45

Also, what does an "assault rifle " look like?Answers on a postcard please....

CS Roche,now in charge in Henry St Limerick... Looks like fun times ahead. Oh well,hope CS Roche has costs for court handy in his new division...

g00167015

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Also, what does an "assault rifle " look like?Answers on a postcard please....

If you ask very nicely, Mr Roche might be able to provide you with a detailed written description. After all, in his own mind, he appears to have ALL the answers........(studying some of the firearms-related evidence which he disclosed recently before a Court of law.) Knowledgable chap indeed

Possible sarcasm ha

Grizzly 45

Should also point out now at this stage.WHEN does it become enough times to have to go to court to prove that your guns are liscenseable without this becoming harrassment?This Reapplication process is now being misused by AGS that everyone is now preparing every 3 years who has a restricted firearm to have to go and do the" district court dance":mad: When three different judges and two chief Superintendents consider you an ok and safe person to have firearms,there should be a cut off point where it should become an automatic re issue.Nowhere else in Irish life would you be hunted and harried this much in any licensing procedure.

Grizzly 45

g00167015 wrote: »

If you ask very nicely, Mr Roche might be able to provide you with a detailed written description. After all, in his own mind, he appears to have ALL the answers........(studying some of the firearms-related evidence which he disclosed recently before a Court of law.) Knowledgable chap indeed

Possible sarcasm ha

Be full of things like "The thing that folds up in the back" and semi fullauto fire capable no doubt.

g00167015

17 months on from my own (non-restricted, 204 rifle) appeal, our fella is STILL in contempt of Court as the certificate has not issued in the correct form as ordered by the Court (ie- no "sour grapes" conditions applied by the embarrased Sup't in direct contravention of S15A_3 of the act). A cert eventually materialised a couple of weeks ago however it only had a 19 month expiry, not the 36 dictated by statute.

(To save queries, it was impossible for me to possess, or attempt to use, the 204 without committing an offence up until March 8th 2018. Original order was Dec 14 2016)

Also, he is also still in contempt of an Order of Costs (in full) made against him. No monies have thusfar been discharged in respect of this Order.


Pathetic abuse of the system by AGS using every conceivable opportunity to attempt to frustrate due process......no less than ELEVEN times before the Court on this matter

A disgraceful organisation

Grizzly 45

Hope you have been onto GSOC, the GA,the cheif comissioner[acting] and the minister for justice on this?i would also go and see about a claim against the minister for justice and the garda comissioner for allowing this carry on of one of their staff being in contempt of court for so long.Utter disgrace..

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hope you have been onto GSOC, ..........

Biggest farce of an oversight group i've ever dealt with.

I'd be straight onto my brief and have them back in court. Accept no apologies or offers on the steps or before. Bring them to court again, make them pay for it.

As we all keep saying at some point we have to stand up for ourselves, especially when the law is on our side.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

Biggest farce of an oversight group i've ever dealt with.

It does seem to be a bit of a shambles, if one in five superintendents is under investigation by it but over 50% of the investigations are done by superintendents.

You'd hope the new policing authority might shake things up a little...

g00167015

GSOC has unfortunately been shown to be nothing except a mechanism for the creation of excuses for unlawful conduct.

Sad really

g00167015

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hope you have been onto GSOC, the GA,the cheif comissioner[acting] and the minister for justice on this?i would also go and see about a claim against the minister for justice and the garda comissioner for allowing this carry on of one of their staff being in contempt of court for so long.Utter disgrace..

Writing to the acting Commissioner, all I will get is a cut-copy-paste reply from the secretary at that office..........

"Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Commissioner to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 12/34/5678. We will revert to you in course.

Yours,
##### #######
Private secretary to Commissioner"




After that, nothing will ever happen except for a whole lot of cowardice and dishonesty and Ostrich mentality etc etc etc

Barely worth wasting printer ink.

Gorgeousgeorge

Reason of refusal was the size and shape of the gun? I dont get it its a semi auto 12ga shotgun at the end of the day. Obv needs to be restricted because of the amount it can hold but it is no different than my old xtrema 2 with the mag extension.

Fair enough if it was wanted for clays or hunting but its intended use is for the precision shotgun comps.

Mind boggling stuff

clivej

Melodeon wrote: »

That IS the shotgun in question.
Or at least, the pump action variant, the UTS-15: http://www.utas-usa.com/pumpactionshotgun
The semi-auto, the XTR-12, is more AR-like: http://www.utas-usa.com/semiautoshotgun

I don't know which version was in question in this case, but both conform to the strictly defined terms and specifications of the Idontlikedalookodat classification.

No It's not, this is what they have, I know because I have shot with the lads

http://www.utas-usa.com/semiautoshotgun

Gorgeousgeorge

clivej wrote: »

No It's not, this is what they have, I know because I have shot with the lads

http://www.utas-usa.com/semiautoshotgun

Clive is right its the xtr 12. It is my local rfd who sells them and went to court over the matter

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Biggest farce of an oversight group i've ever dealt with.

I'd be straight onto my brief and have them back in court. Accept no apologies or offers on the steps or before. Bring them to court again, make them pay for it.

As we all keep saying at some point we have to stand up for ourselves, especially when the law is on our side.

!00% Ab- sol- loutey correct on how good GSOC is on this...

However, there is a method to our madness and it behoves everyone to report and instigate an investigation into any such shennanigans of Supers and Cheif supers, no matter what the [obvious[outcome of the GSOC investigation will be... Keep reporting and soon a cunning plan will spring into action.

100% if they are going to do deals at the court door, they might as well speak up and go nil contende in the court.


Writing to the acting Commissioner, all I will get is a cut-copy-paste reply from the secretary at that office..........

"Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Commissioner to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 12/34/5678. We will revert to you in course.

Yours,
##### #######
Private secretary to Commissioner"

Ah.. It needs to come from "Bob Massingbird & co Solrs " "Successfully screwing and litigating against the Govt since the States foundation" Types.;) I

IOW you need the type of people that Frank Mc Bearty used to write to the Commissioner and minister on this matter.

I'm sure they would be glad to hear of the great improvements in policing matters like this in your neck of the woods since the Mc Bearty affair.

gunny123

I was looking at a lad in the UK with these BR99 shotguns. Similar sort of thing.


http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/category/br99-shotguns/

Grizzly 45

clivej wrote: »

No It's not, this is what they have, I know because I have shot with the lads

http://www.utas-usa.com/semiautoshotgun

You and me both about 4 weeks ago... Looks good that gun,but I think I'll stick with a Saiga 12 or Molot Veper 12 all the same.:pac::)

gunny123

Are the fcp no use in this particular instance ?

ED E

Cass wrote: »

he CS says the gun is more dangerous because of how it looks. I mean my God, from a legal point of view did he ever think that would fly?

A CS with years in the job especially in the "good old days" of zero accountability is likely of the opinion that his word is gospel.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

Are the fcp no use in this particular instance ?

Probably not, as it is legislation, however, a strong case could be made that the legislative power is being abused with these reapplications with certain people.How many times do you need to go to a DC to have a DC judge grant a license that a CS is unwilling to do because of ABC CYA mentality.If they cant prove a case on looks, military or police only usage, military calibres, mag capacity, no competitions for this particular type of firearm, or the mere civilians might drop down dead from fright on seeing this type of gun in public...What is left?One DC dance is enough ..3times is extracting the urine on any one individual.

g00167015

ED E wrote: »

A CS with years in the job especially in the "good old days" of zero accountability is likely of the opinion that his word is gospel.

Also known as the "C'mere ta me boy, don't you know I'm the law" mentality

Gorgeousgeorge

Also id like to add to this thread that we are blessed in kildare town and surrounding areas with our firearms officer and super.

Good people who are very accomadating and respectful of our sport.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Are the fcp no use in this particular instance ?

They are a consultancy panel, no more. They are there to aid in the smooth implementation of the firearms act and to advise both gun owners and AGS. However if a Super of CS doesn't use them, they [FCP] have no authority to override their decision. That is why we have the courts.

Grizzly 45

Ok. seems CS Roche has started with a clean leaf in Limerick.Grant authorisation letter was in the post this AM for a restricted semi-auto rifle.:D

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Are the fcp no use in this particular instance ?

They are a consultancy panel, no more. They are there to aid in the smooth implementation of the firearms act and to advise both gun owners and AGS. However if a Super of CS doesn't use them, they [FCP] have no authority to override their decision. That is why we have the courts.

I still think central licencing is the way to go. Supers and chief supers ruling over an area like a little tinpot god turns licencing into a postcode lottery.

Sparks

The only problem with that idea is this:

Please picture Garda Ballistics in charge of every licencing application in the country.

Cass

Centralized licensing seems, on paper, to be the ideal situation. One Super and one Chief Super with a horde of civilians doing the admin work.

The problem, and it's only an assumptive problem, is what Super or Chief Super do we end up with? If we get someone who follows the law, the Acts, listens to the FCP and FPU and applies all that fairly then we're set.

If we get someone with a hatred of firearms, has their own illegal blanket ban policy on certain types of guns or suppressors then everyone faces an uphill battle.

If the position of FO is unwanted among rank and file imagine how "popular" such a posting would be for a Super of CS with aspirations of Commissioner.

I can see the benefit if its run right and i don't just mean a common sense Super/CS but a department with the man power and finances to do the work. At present each district has a Super and possibly CS (but usually one CS to a couple of districts). Each district has only one FO and most smaller stations don't even have that but simply send the applications onto the district station. So if that FO is out, missing, sick, busy, etc. the applications pile up and delays are had.

If a centralized system has no other work bar the processing of applications and can make it work then it'll speed up processing and delays will be reduced. However as they still work on a paper system it means if a chap in say Donegal or Kerry applies it goes tot he district station, the FO does their part, sends it to Dublin (guaranteed that's where the dept will be based) they process it, and then send out the grants/license.

An online system would be much quicker and no less secure given the amount of "lost" applications AGS say happen. The same type of system is in place in the north, but they have had issues and serious delays but to me, and i'm not overly familiar with their system, it seems as a result of implementing it all at once and not on a phased basis.

So many ways to improve but each must be well thought out implemented in a proper and controlled manner.

Grizzly 45

Thing is, if they refused all of a certain type of firearm, all over the 26 it's a blanket ban by then ONE CS, which puts him/her as a permanent resident in every witness box in the country on an almost weekly basis.

It's now at a point that if you have had a license for a restricted firearm, and have done nothing to have it revoked or refused, it's going to be damn hard for anyone to justify removing that license in a court off you.Esp, if it has been granted X number of times previously. So I doubt having this centralised would change much on the granting/refusing side of things and the process of appeal still stays the same, as there are crickets to be heard on this "FAAA" body that was supposed to be an intermediary...

FWIW, I think our more pressing enemies will be found in our own ranks, trying to cut deals in backrooms and throwing others to the lions in the hope the Lions will be full by the time they reach them,[to misquote Churchill]

Rifter

Sparks wrote: »

The only problem with that idea is this:

Please picture Garda Ballistics in charge of every licencing application in the country.

Why would senior Gardai need to be anywhere near, why not an all civilian staff??

Why can't AGS just perform a background check for your application and its a fully idependent civilian dept that deal with the application from that point on......

Or am I dreaming

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thing is, if they refused all of a certain type of firearm, all over the 26 it's a blanket ban by then ONE CS, which puts him/her as a permanent resident in every witness box in the country on an almost weekly basis.

Yup, and as i said above it's illegal and currently does happen on a smaller scale. Being centralized doesn't make it any less wrong and possibly a bit easier to spot, but the small issue of it still happening is an issue.

Even if he were in court each week its still an inconvenience and i don't have to tell you the amount of people that have surrendered firearms or taken something else because of the possibility of a court case.

Plus no such blanket ban would come as "i'm banning it because i don't like it". They will use a perfectly legal excuse.

FWIW, I think our more pressing enemies will be found in our own ranks, trying to cut deals in backrooms and throwing others to the lions in the hope the Lions will be full by the time they reach them,[to misquote Churchill]

Agree.

Rifter wrote: »

Why would senior Gardai need to be anywhere near, why not an all civilian staff??

Why can't AGS just perform a background check for your application and its a fully idependent civilian dept that deal with the application from that point on......

Or am I dreaming

Because of the way our firearms licensing works. AGS are the sole body for authorising licenses. To make it so a civilian body can do it would require either a rewrite or completely new firearms act.

The district court can direct a Super to issue a license and in extreme cases issue it themselves, but it still requires AGS to do the actual issuing.

Rifter

Cass wrote: »

Because of the way our firearms licensing works. AGS are the sole body for authorising licenses. To make it so a civilian body can do it would require either a rewrite or completely new firearms act.

The district court can direct a Super to issue a license and in extreme cases issue it themselves, but it still requires AGS to do the actual issuing.

Maybe I was being waaaaay too optimistic when a Centralised Licencing Authority was floated that this would be the case!! I apologise, ill continue with the normal and appropriate amount of cynicism : )

gunny123

The way the licencing system is carried out here, is a left-over from the civil war times i would imagine.

Its hardly very efficient, tying up gardai in the processing of licences either. Add that to the fact that they have been caught time and again, breaking the law by having blanket bans. My own super will not issue certs for moderators on centrefire rifles.

Grizzly 45

Should remind him of the EU directives on noise abatement at the source.
The very same legislation he would use to persecute boy racers with extremely loud exhaust boxes.
This BTW is written as an acceptable good reason by Garda ballistics themselves for possession of a silencer. As this was also a reason I put in my application back in 2014.It was signed off on the report as an acceptable good reason by Sgt[?] J Cummins, should he wish to verify this.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

.Its hardly very efficient, tying up gardai in the processing of licences either.

They [AGS] don't want to be doing this.

Every FO i've had over the last 5 years has only lasted 12 months or less then either retired, moved on, or been reassigned. And that is only the local station. The district station has been stable enough until recently, but with 3 Supers in the last 5 years, a new FO that doesn't even work out of the district station, and each with their own "style" its hard to know what will happen with each application.

liberx1

Good for them. Any and all "assault weapons" laws are stupid

Cass

Bumping this thread because i was looking at one of these shotguns today and something clicked.

We talk about the person in this case winning, but does section 12 as amended by section 65 of the 2006 act not already prohibit this firearm?

12A.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person who shortens the barrel of—

(a) a shot-gun to a length of less than 61 centimetres, or

(b) a rifle to a length of less than 50 centimetres,

is guilty of an offence.

(2) It is not an offence under subsection (1) for a registered firearms dealer to shorten the barrel of a shot-gun or rifle to a length of less than 61 or 50 centimetres respectively if the sole purpose of doing so is to replace a defective part of the barrel with a barrel of not less than 61 or 50 centimetres, as the case may be

Or is this the Ruger 10/22 all over again?

solarwinds

My understanding of that section is that it relates to the after market shortening of an existing barrel by an individual with a hacksaw, I dont know would it apply to a factory produced short barrel already fitted to the firearm.
Is it me or does section 2 contradict itself in the same paragraph.

Cass

solarwinds wrote: »

I dont know would it apply to a factory produced short barrel already fitted to the firearm.

That is what had me curious. It's why i wondered if its the "Ruger 10/22" case no one wants to take.

Rifles cannot be shorter than 50cm and shotguns 61, but SI 21/2008 says a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 24" (61cm) is restricted.

I'm lost again.

Is it me or does section 2 contradict itself in the same paragraph.

The bit about not being allowed to have it, but an authorised person can?

Yeah that raises a good debate each time it's brought up. Your license gives you authoirsation and RFDs are authorised and as the FCA1 does not ask for barrel length then technically if granted the license you're authorisd, even though the Act/SI says its illegal.

Ya gotta love the Irish Firearm Laws.

Nekarsulm

Just a quick question, if I were to try and obtain a Bullpup Unlimited kit for my Mossberg 500, would it be permissible under Irish law?
Bullpup designs are, I believe, prohibited.
But only because the magazine is behind the hand grip/trigger.
This does not apply to the 500.
Barrel length would still be 28 inches, and overall length approx. 40 inches.

Cass

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Bullpup designs are, I believe, prohibited.

Not prohibited, restricted. Its why the Buckmark "rifle" is a restricted firearm. The mag loads from behind the trigger so even though its a ten round mag and 22lr as its a bullpup, technically and legally, its restricted.

SI 21/2008 says the following are unrestricted (i've highlighted the exception)

(c) the following long firearms (not being assault rifles or bullpup rifles):

(i) single-shot or repeating rifled centre-fire firearms of a calibre not exceeding 7.62 millimetres (.308 inch) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres,

(ii) single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds,

(iii) air-operated rifled or smoothbore firearms;

Glass fused light

solarwinds wrote: »

My understanding of that section is that it relates to the after market shortening of an existing barrel by an individual with a hacksaw, I dont know would it apply to a factory produced short barrel already fitted to the firearm.
Is it me or does section 2 contradict itself in the same paragraph.

It's really poor English.
After a couple of readings I think what the wording is for where a firearms dealer has to cut a long barrel to the size of an existing short barrel to do a like for like replacement of a defective barrel that action is not an offence.