Right to Self defence versus right to bear arms ?

masculinist

I was reading about a case abroad where someone was granted a firearm for self defence purposes.

I also noted that some high level Gardai are permitted to keep a gun at home for self defence purposes also.

If regular citizens' life was in danger from a credible threat e.g a mob boss or a terrorist group , Would that citizen in the Republic of Ireland be permitted to possess a firearm legally for their self defence ?

Would there be any legal case for it ? I'm inspired to ask this question due to a connection I have with the family of a retired high level Garda who had a firearm at home for exactly that purpose. So would there be a double standard with a regular citizen being practically defenceless against an organized armed criminal threat ?

Peregrinus

Anyone can apply for a firearms certificate, authorising them to own and keep a weapon of a particular description and a quantity of ammunition for it. To get the certificate you have to show a "good reason", which in most cases is either for sporting purposes or for pest control on farmland, but there's nothing to stop you offering self-defence needs and your particular circumstances as a good reason. But note that it's not enough just to say that you have a good reason; you have to show that you have a good reason. So you need to be producing evidence that you are likely to be the particular target of an armed criminal or terrorist group.

Even if you get past this, there's a second hurdle; the guards have to be satisfied that granting the certificate would not result in a danger to the public or to the peace. So if you're not as credible a responsible gun owner as the retired senior guard with whom you compare yourself - if you don't have his training, experience, judgment, etc - your application is not quite on all fours with his. There's plenty of evidence from other jurisdictions to show that people arming themselves to resist anticipated crime creates more problems than it solves, so the policy here is to take an extremely restrictive approach to it.

I think it's a racing certainty that your application for a firearms certificate for the reasons you give here will be rejected at first instance. You do however have a right of appeal to the District Court, and the decision of the District Court can be reviewed in the usual way in the higher courts. Which I think is what you'd have to do if you were arguing that there is an implied constitutional right to bear arms in self-defence.

Victor

In Ireland, the number of people with firearms for self defence purposes are exceptionally small. If anything, if it came to it, the Garda is as likely to issue you with a firearm.

Bodyguards for celebrities don't get licences for firearms.

Brian Lighthouse

Some witty dialogue explaining the process here for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ThhuIUll8

BattleCorp

Peregrinus wrote: »

To get the certificate you have to show a "good reason", which in most cases is either for sporting purposes or for pest control on farmland, but there's nothing to stop you offering self-defence needs and your particular circumstances as a good reason.

Which Act or S.I. allows guns for self-defence (granted in very very very limited circumstances)?

Peregrinus

BattleCorp wrote: »

Which Act or S.I. allows guns for self-defence (granted in very very very limited circumstances)?

There's no specific mention of self-defence; just that there has to be a "good reason" for you to possess a firearm. I will try and trace the specific statutory reference later, and post again.

GM228

BattleCorp wrote: »

Which Act or S.I. allows guns for self-defence (granted in very very very limited circumstances)?

Self defence is not specifically mentioned, rather you give "good reason" as Peregrinus stated, this is covered under S4 (2)(a) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended.

masculinist

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which I think is what you'd have to do if you were arguing that there is an implied constitutional right to bear arms in self-defence.

If an assailant has a firearm , I'd assume legally that a victim would not be legally allowed possess a firearm to defend against a firearm with a firearm

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's no specific mention of self-defence; just that there has to be a "good reason" for you to possess a firearm. I will try and trace the specific statutory reference later, and post again.

what would a suburban dwelling Gardas' ''good reason'' be ? It wouldnt be to stop dogs worrying his sheep

what if a ordinary citizen was subject to a highly credible threat ? If he was refused a legal firearm would the state then be obliged to protect him around the clock by providing a Garda armed with a firearm ?

4ensic15

masculinist wrote: »

If an assailant has a firearm , I'd assume legally that a victim would not be legally allowed possess a firearm to defend against a firearm with a firearm

If an assailant was threatening with a firearm and the intended victim had a firearm it may well be a proportionate response to use a firearm in defence. The legality of how the intended victim had possession of the firearm would not be relevant.

masculinist wrote: »

what would a suburban dwelling Gardas' ''good reason'' be ? It wouldnt be to stop dogs worrying his sheep

Where the Garda lives is irrelevant to any issue in the consideration of the approval of a licence.

masculinist wrote: »

what if a ordinary citizen was subject to a highly credible threat ? If he was refused a legal firearm would the state then be obliged to protect him around the clock by providing a Garda armed with a firearm ?

There is only one class of citizen. It is a matter for the government to decide on priorities with regard to state resources. The state is not obliged to do anything other than possibly warn the person of the threat.

Allowing any individual possession of a firearm for the protection of himself or anyone else carries the risk of the same firearm falling into the hands of a person or persons who will use it for destructive purposes. In the case of people who have firearms for sporting purposes they are often obliged to have a gun safe and are not permitted to carry the firearm about where they like.

pawdee

I'm having both my arms surgically replaced with bear arms for self defence next week. It's my right.

hullaballoo

You won't be able to use the arms at all never mind as a bear does.

They would be more of a hindrance than anything.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

If an assailant has a firearm , I'd assume legally that a victim would not be legally allowed possess a firearm to defend against a firearm with a firearm

I'm not sure of the relevance of this question. Nobody applies for a firearms certificate because he is actually, right now, being assailed by an armed person. He applies for a firearms certificate because he thinks he might be attacked at some point in the future.

masculinist wrote: »

what would a suburban dwelling Gardas' ''good reason'' be ? It wouldnt be to stop dogs worrying his sheep

I've no idea, since I'm not the suburban dwelling garda in question. But that is precisely the question he would have to answer in connection with his application for a firearms certificate.

masculinist wrote: »

what if a ordinary citizen was subject to a highly credible threat ? If he was refused a legal firearm would the state then be obliged to protect him around the clock by providing a Garda armed with a firearm ?

No. The authorities might form a view as to whether the threat to him justified the provision of armed protection, but that would be done independently of his application for a firearms certificate.

As regards his application for a firearms certificate, the guards would of course have to evaluate the gravity of the threat to him. They'd also have to think about the degree to which his posssession of a firearm would neutralise the threat. As 4ensic15 says, they'd have to think about the risk of the firearm falling into the hands of others - firearms are popular items with thieves and burglars, for obvious reasons - and of course they'd also have to consider the risk of harm resulting from inapproriate, incompetent or inept use by the holder, which is a huge problem in societies where it is common for people to keep guns out of a fear of being crime victims.

BattleCorp

GM228 wrote: »

Self defence is not specifically mentioned, rather you give "good reason" as Peregrinus stated, this is covered under S4 (2)(a) of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended.

Is 'good reason' defined anywhere in the legislation?

I know that the general thinking is that good reason covers target shooting, hunting, vermin control and the humane despatch of animals. Is there a list of 'good reasons' or is it open to whatever the Super/Chief Super decides themselves is a 'good reason'?

GM228

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is 'good reason' defined anywhere in the legislation?

I know that the general thinking is that good reason covers target shooting, hunting, vermin control and the humane despatch of animals. Is there a list of 'good reasons' or is it open to whatever the Super/Chief Super decides themselves is a 'good reason'?

No, it is too general to define "good reason".

What makes a good reason would be decided objectively.

Peregrinus

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is 'good reason' defined anywhere in the legislation?

I know that the general thinking is that good reason covers target shooting, hunting, vermin control and the humane despatch of animals. Is there a list of 'good reasons' or is it open to whatever the Super/Chief Super decides themselves is a 'good reason'?

The first person who faces this challenge is not the super; it's the applicant, since he has to nominate a reason which he thinks is good. The super doesn't need to have a exhaustive list of "good reasons" in his head; he just has to decide whether the particular reason offered by the particular applicant is good or not.

And that's not a question that gets decided in the abstract. The question is not "is this a good reason to hold a firearm?". It's "is this a good reason for this applicant to hold a firearm?" Controlling predators might be a good reason for an applicant who is a sheep farmer, for example, but not for an applicant who lives in a fourth-floor apartment in an urban area.

If there are people holding firearms for self-defence, then obviously self defence can be a good reason, in the right circumstances. But that's no help to you; the only thing that matters to you is whether self defence is a good reason in your circumstances.

Lmklad

Peregrinus sums it up very well. However the title of this thread is incorrect, there is no “right” to own a firearm in Ireland.

As previously stated the reasons for holding a firearms certificate are, for vermin control, hunting or competition shooting or other good reason. In my opinion the legislation was left vague deliberately to allow for certain anomalies.

A person may also apply for multiple certification however each certificate is unique and stands on its own merits. For example if you can show you are a multi-disciplinary competition shooter you could hold several different shot gun certs whereas a farmer may only be granted permission for one shotgun for vermin control.

Afaik “self defense” is not defined in law other than that the response must be proportionate to the perceived threat.

If a person feels that a firearm is the only method of self defense they may certainly apply for a certificate. The local Super will make an informed decision. If refused the applicant may then appeal to the District Court who is the final arbiter.