Firearm revoked for being "careless".

Cass

Have a read.

No laws broken, but the judge upheld the revocation based on the person being "careless", and the initial revocation was done because the Super "suspected" the person of being involved in a criminal offence.

solarwinds

Jaysus. A lot of hypotheticals there. Someone doesnt like guns.
COULD have broken into his car by seeing ammo.
I SUSPECT a wrong doing.
Hmmm all very suspect.

Sparks

A solicitor said that was a very serious allegation and not stated in the letter of revocation.

Damn right. The AGS have very extensive powers to revoke licences precisely so that in cases where suspicions like that exist they can act on them to forestall something they believe might happen - but equally the law doesn't allow you to keep your reasons secret because that's just a recipe for abuse.
Y'know, if the new commissioner manages to get supers to stop pulling that kind of nonsense and actually step up to the line and declare their suspicions when they act on them, the way the Act says they have to, I'd count that as a major success.

p28559

not a whole lot of clarity in the evidence reported on.



seems a case of an garda siochanna introducing enough " what if's and maybes" to justify the decision with the judge preferring that evidence over the applicant.

Cass

solarwinds wrote: »

Jaysus. A lot of hypotheticals there..

Sparks wrote: »

............. but equally the law doesn't allow you to keep your reasons secret because that's just a recipe for abuse..............

Wasn't there a high court case (and i know its too expensive for the lay person) where the Justice said that citing public safety in of itself is not enough unless they [Gardaí] can show exactly what public safety issues they are concerned with?

solarwinds

Reminds me of whem i lost my 9mm on public safety grounds but was allowed no problem to have 6.5, .223, .22 and a 12g. Makes about as much sense as a chocolate teapot. The famous public safety catch all nearly as bad as the dreade on Health & Safety grounds we must ..........

gunny123

What was he suspected of ? It seems deer poaching, from my quick read of the article. Blood and signs of lamping in the jeep, along with ammunition. But he may have been lamping foxes as he is a farmer.

Its like the old nod and a wink to the judge type of nonsense that went on years ago.

If you have evidence, put it before the court.

garv123

Was he out shooting when the jeep was stolen?

Signs of blood does not mean he was poaching, plenty people might shoot a deer in the evening, and go lamping foxes that night and not wash out the tray..

How many people go shooting and bring all their ammo/gun slip with them when walking fields?
Seems careless that the keys were left in the jeep tho.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

Wasn't there a high court case (and i know its too expensive for the lay person) where the Justice said that citing public safety in of itself is not enough unless they [Gardacan show exactly what public safety issues they are concerned with?

Yeah, some guy called Cass mentioned it a while back
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106785740

But it was a district court case and I can't find an online record of the judgement

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

What was he suspected of ? It seems deer poaching, from my quick read of the article. Blood and signs of lamping in the jeep, along with ammunition. But he may have been lamping foxes as he is a farmer.

Its like the old nod and a wink to the judge type of nonsense that went on years ago.

If you have evidence, put it before the court.

AHA...More to this than being let on in "the medjia.":rolleyes:

riffmongous

If I read it correctly, and then reading between the lines, he was out poaching, got involved in an accident with another car, then legged it with the gun and reported the jeep as stolen is what the judge was thinking

Vegeta

Yeah there is definitely something fishy about what went on. At the same time, failing to get licenses renewed based on nothing bar the whims of a Garda seems like a failure of the justice system.

Grizzly 45

Seems there is quite alot not being said about this case,bar the "sheep fodder" in
Irish MSM that we are being fed. Other reports didnt mention the number of shells and it left me wondering, how many did they find until it turns out to be 3boxes worth.Deffo alot more to this story.So maybe that's why it looks like a harsh decision by the Super.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, some guy called Cass mentioned it a while back
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106785740

But it was a district court case and I can't find an online record of the judgement

Doesnt it usually take about 4months for it to be posted up online?

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, some guy called Cass mentioned it a while back
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=106785740

Ah balls.

I remember that post now, but that was not the one i was thinking off.

But it was a district court case and I can't find an online record of the judgement

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Doesnt it usually take about 4months for it to be posted up online?

There was a high court case, nearly sure it was, were the justice said the Gardaí cannot cite public safety without showing cause. The same as Judge Zaidan said a few months back. The case was from 2013 or 2014 i think.

Also the district court is not a court of record, is it?

Gorgeousgeorge

Something amiss alright. Cant see lambert getting up in court either and putting his reputation on the line.

Nekarsulm

Weird one, all right.
"The Court heard that he had never come to the attention of the Gardai before"

Yet a quick Google throws up an interesting case in 2010, where his Solicitor applied to the Court for a "Gary Doyle" order.
This seems to be " a person cannot be expected to defend themselves if they don't know what they are being accused of".
No report of how it ended up.

A suspicious mind would almost suspect a settling of old scores..... aided by a fortuitous discovery of his jeep.

solarwinds

That there now is venturing very close to tin foil hat wearing territory.