Violent Poacher gets a deer cert

cavan shooter

https://www.thesun.ie/news/4008226/violent-poacher-john-nogsey-nolan-kill-cert-hunting/

See attached. Bet Countrysports Ireland dont need this on a Easter Bank Holiday. Pretty painful

CorkCBR6

Last thing CS needed. Great organisation.

Might be an idea to make it mandatory to have an active license (any calibre) for people taking the course.

At least you know they'll be background checked

Grizzly 45

I was actually on that course that day...[More about that in another post,on my thoughts about this course]He wasn't in my group,but I remember him sitting outside with some others and the overheard comment by me passing by was something about" not having rifles", or "not meeting the required shooting standard".

cavan shooter

How do you avoid this from happening. I'm assuming they ask basic questions, but your very reliant on the answers and the Bona Fides of the applicant.....as I said very embarrassing to have their course splashed all over the press like that. I wonder how did the press find out??

Kran

Wonder why he is even bothering with this course? Surely he won’t ever be granted a firearms or Deer license ever again.

cookimonster

Jes' he ticks all the boxs as a prime candidate for a firearm.... love to see who his referee is.

Cass

cavan shooter wrote: »

How do you avoid this from happening.

Three options, i'd guess:

1. As was said above make sure everyone attending has their own license/firearm.
2. Start, as it's too late to say it should have been done, asking for anyone with criminal convictions that bar them from holding a firearm cert to identify themselves, then prohibit them from shooting on the range, or taking part in any comp, course, or other activity.
3. Stop doing anything involving non members, and even then have the members "vetted" on their membership application. (there are all kinds of issues relating to GDPR, data protection, etc, but you get the idea)

Option 1 is good, but makes section 2(4), etc. of the firearms act (that deals with non firearms license holders on a range) redundant.
As for option 2, as you said you're relying on truthful answers and if the person(s) don't tell you, you've no way of finding out.
As for option 3 it'll spell the end of most ranges that rely on the revenue from such events to stay open. out.

but your very reliant on the answers and the Bona Fides of the applicant...

Exactly.

The other thing is, and i'll do a check on this because i cannot be sure of this myself, but the Range SI, and section 2(4)&(5) of the Firearms act allow for non firearm license holders to use range rifles on an authorised range, under supervision if necessary. There is no mention, afaik, of anyone being prohibited from using a range like this because of a previous revocation of a firearms license, or any previous convictions of any sort (wildlife, firearm, other).

Obviously no course wants this type of publicity, but from a personal point of view, and this is only my opinion, i don't know what else the course could do to prevent this, and to ensure this won't happen again as they seemingly have followed the law.

I wonder how did the press find out??

Social media i'd guess. I know/recognise the picture from a recent batch of pics on Facebook.

Kran wrote: »

Wonder why he is even bothering with this course? Surely he won’t ever be granted a firearms or Deer license ever again.

Only thinking that myself. No firearms license, and no chance of getting one. It's not required for anything other than Coilte and without the deer license and firearm details that won't be happening either.

It's an odd one.

cookimonster

Kran wrote: »

Wonder why he is even bothering with this course? Surely he won’t ever be granted a firearms or Deer license ever again.

He now knows better, he's now qualified rather then being ignorant of the facts, has now been taught by experienced individuals, he is now repentant over his past indiscretions...... he is on the right path....... ........ a path to try and justify his legal return to hunting................. .......... give it time and he will be the victim in all of this past and present.

Just my opinion.

Grizzly 45

cookimonster wrote: »

He now knows better, he's now qualified rather then being ignorant of the facts, has now been taught by experienced individuals, he is now repentant over his past indiscretions...... he is on the right path....... ........ a path to try and justify his legal return to hunting................. .......... give it time and he will be the victim in all of this past and present.

Just my opinion.

Exactly...What is the time limit on such a refusal?5years?10 years?Bashing a garda is proably more serious than the poaching charge.

solarwinds

Market research probably, using the course to get information that people will share with seemingly like minded people.
It wasnt to stay within the law i imagine.

kunekunesika

What's the chance of some state funded body paying for him to do the course?? To up-skill him and address some skills deficit in one of his listed professions? Whoever organised it would have as happily funded a flower arranging course if they could tick a box. Happens all the time.

hawlk

Surely it is the duty of the range operator to vet to whom he is hiring rifles
and to ensure that the hired rifle is only used by the person whose name is recorded as being in charge of the rifle.I have been told that no checks were carried out that any of people on the course had permits for the rifles that they used

Cass

hawlk wrote: »

Surely it is the duty of the range operator to vet to whom he is hiring rifles

How? GDPR, Data protection means a range operator has only the information that s/he has been provided by the person. They have no access to personal details, information or PULSE and An Gardaí cannot disclose any personal details to any range operator because that too is a breach of data protection and GDPR says they are subject to fines of €250,000 per breach and a jail term.

So as i said above:

Cass wrote:

....... but the Range SI, and section 2(4)&(5) of the Firearms act allow for non firearm license holders to use range rifles on an authorised range, under supervision if necessary

So look at section 2(2) which says its an offence to not have a license:

Statute book wrote:

(2) Save in any of the cases hereinafter excepted from this section, every person who after the commencement of this Act has in his possession, uses, or carries any firearm without holding a firearm certificate therefor or otherwise than as authorised by such certificate, or purchases, uses, has in his possession, or carries any ammunition without holding a firearm certificate therefor or in quantities in excess of those authorised by such certificate, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a firearm certificate was granted to him, shall be guilty of an offence

Then look at the following section which shows exemptions. Specifically 2(4)(d) which states:

This section shall not apply to any of the following cases and such cases are accordingly excepted from this section, that is to say

( d ) the possession, use or carriage of a firearm or ammunition during a competition or target practice at a club, shooting range or any other place that stands authorised under this section or section 4A of this Act ]

As such the range is legally covered. As are all ranges, clubs, etc. that stand authorised.

I have been told that no checks were carried out that any of people on the course had permits for the rifles that they used

By whom? Word of mouth? Anonymous source?

The problem with that is it's hearsay and possible defamation not to mention as i said at the start of this post, moot.

The range is legally covered under the law to carry out such activities. All ranges are. There is no way for any range to "vet" anyone in the way you think.

If this range comes under fire, excuse the pun, for their actions then all ranges that hire out rifles, allow non members/non license holders, to shoot on the their range can kiss that goodbye NOW.

It'll mean the end of junior shooting programs, newbies into the sport, open competitions, and will have an effect on clay shoots, etc.

IOW it'll destroy the sport.

I am a member of that range i'll defend it to my dying breath, but this is not just a "member defending his range" this is someone that sees the larger picture and the ramifications of unfounded and baseless speculations and rumors and what harm it can cause to ALL RANGES and the sport.

This guy actually broke no law i can think off by attending this course. He is covered while on the range (as i still cannot find anything about someone who had a license refused or revoked from using Section2(4)(d) to shoot on a range), the range cannot vet people like AGS can, and they provided the necessary ROs, RCOs to oversee the event.

So other than the outrage about someone like this guy being able to take this course what exactly do you, or anyone else, think has been done that shouldn't have been?

Do you think this is the first time someone like this has taken a course like this?
Do you think it's the first time someone like this has been on a range, any range?
Do you think he is the only like him out there?,

The reason for this story being what it is is because its in the Sun (feel dirty even writing the name of that "paper"), and social media does what it always does and kicks into overdrive with opinions, plastic outrage, and the usual "down with this sort of thing" that usually follows.

Should this guy have been there - No. Could anything different have been done to stop it - NO.

Barring AGS give range operators access to PULSE along with an exemption of GDPR regs (which obviously they cannot do) then nothing can be done that was not already done to minimise situations like this. Also worth remembering that in over 160 years we have had no instances or incidents and a safety record not matched by any other sport including the GAA. All SELF POLICED.

I'm only surprised their hasn't been a Facebook profile picture change started, or messages of "we stand with the Deer". :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

I have been told that no checks were carried out that any of people on the course had permits for the rifles that they used

Horse ****!! End of...

cavan shooter

Only back to it now, as I said its embarrassing for the CSI and all involved, but really anyone and I mean anyone running courses or anything open to the public in relation to delegates or Joe public it's a roll the dice as to who attends, the caliber of the delegate and in some cases what their agenda is.

It's also a case that some bull**** artist could pick up on something said off the cuff and run away with their feelings hurt or to the cops whinging that in their opinion something wasn't done right and demand action is taken......which I believe happened in the past. There is a saying "there go I but for the grace of God" it's a salutary lesson.

berettaman

cavan shooter wrote: »

Only back to it now, as I said its embarrassing for the CSI and all involved, but really anyone and I mean anyone running courses or anything open to the public in relation to delegates or Joe public it's a roll the dice as to who attends, the caliber of the delegate and in some cases what their agenda is.

It's also a case that some bull**** artist could pick up on something said off the cuff and run away with their feelings hurt or to the cops whinging that in their opinion something wasn't done right and demand action is taken......which I believe happened in the past. There is a saying "there go I but for the grace of God" it's a salutary lesson.

It is a tricky one for the organisers.


It's like the lads organising a charity shoot in Cork for a good cause and some lad arrives down and allegedly makes a complaint to Gardai about alleged illegal activity at the shoot..he allegedly might have been a CSI member too, allegedly.



Beginning to believe Karma is real..;)


B. Man, Allegedly.

ayagerard

berettaman wrote: »

It is a tricky one for the organisers.


It's like the lads organising a charity shoot in Cork for a good cause and some lad arrives down and allegedly makes a complaint to Gardai about alleged illegal activity at the shoot..he allegedly might have been a CSI member too, allegedly.



Beginning to believe Karma is real..;)


B. Man, Allegedly.

isn't the wheel always turning ,with them kind of friends why would you be looking for enemies way too-ooo much fun this way , this is another home goal with another mark against the shooting man on the ground with the halkers looking for more rules and more regs to be applied if they get their way and while it might be the csi with egg on their faces this time it looks bad on us as well

Beginning to believe Karma is real..;) i hope so and i hope every one gets what they deserve
aya

Cass

Lads

I'm going to post this with the Mod hat on because it's that serious, and it's a general warning, not a directed one.

Be careful about making allegations against named individuals or companies/businesses. Putting the word "allegedly" before a comment does not, and will not, excuse any defamation that occurs.

By all means talk and have your say, but i'll warn people to thread carefully before making accusations, and to those looking to pile on, don't.

There is an excuse under law for someone that makes a comment based on honest opinion, in other words something they believe to be true and if shown not to be they remove the comment, but there is no excuse or defense for those that pile on with other comments that have no basis in truth and they know it to be false.

It also does not cover you for insults.

In case you think i'm exaggerating let me remind everyone about the last time someone took a swipe at a known individual on social media.

Lastly i have no association to or interaction with CSI. The range yes, but not CSI so it's not me "covering for them". If a defamatory comment is made the Admins will shut the thread and if it's goes further, outside of Boards, the admins will co-operate with any legal demands made by the defamed party.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Exactly...What is the time limit on such a refusal?5years?10 years?Bashing a garda is proably more serious than the poaching charge.

There is no time limit.
There are some convictions that bar you from applying for a cert under section 4 for a number of years, but that's an automatic bar from application, not a "taken into account" reason for a refusal.
If the super decides that something that happened 20 years ago is sufficiently relevant to an application that he thinks it should be refused, they are legally empowered to refuse - and if they think that "ancient history" means granting a cert would cause a risk to the public, well, then they are not legally permitted to grant the licence.

In those cases, the elapsed time just isn't even mentioned in the Act. You might argue against their judgement in a courtroom because they're no longer the persona designata, but that's a whole other ball game.

Sparks

hawlk wrote: »

I have been told that no checks were carried out that any of people on the course had permits for the rifles that they used

What checks would be required? Section 2(4)(d) means nobody needs a cert for any firearm being used on an authorised range unless it's a restricted firearm, and it's been that way for almost a century.

And I'd be very careful about listing checks a range officer must perform. When you start getting into things like "should this person be shooting" and background checks and the like, you are *wildly* out into the weeds legally. Someone rocks up to a range one day and an RO says "no, I think you shouldn't be shooting because I heard you did X"? That's a potential defamation lawsuit right there, and penalties for losing one of those get measured in the five to six figure range.

The RO is there to ensure range safety. Getting out of that lane is something to be done with a lot of care, with a solid rulebook to point at and a signature from the person being talked to saying they agreed to abide by that rulebook, and since that's a lot of detail and I doubt anyone here has that much detail on the day in question to hand, I think we should be careful to not point at anyone and say something that could be boiled down to "it's their fault".

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

anyone and I mean anyone running courses or anything open to the public in relation to delegates or Joe public it's a roll the dice as to who attends, the caliber of the delegate and in some cases what their agenda is.

I've said it before but I think it bears repeating given the context...

Sparks wrote: »

There was some initial reasonable concern given the current legislative changes. A business being set up to provide training courses right as legislative changes to make more training mandatory are being lobbied for by a small minority was always going to cause those concerns and the lack of details surrounding the affair was always going to exacerbate that. This is Ireland, that's life here. Now that the details are out, I don't think those concerns are as much of a worry as they were.

And as a side note, the way the company was registered was not ever a concern, it's a common way of doing that kind of thing, hundreds of companies have been founded that way, it's a commercial service that's not involved in our sport and that aspect of it is all above board and normal.

I'll refrain from commenting on this specific company if you don't mind. I think you all know my thoughts regarding at least one of its directors. There's not a lot of point in going over that; you have a search function on the board if you're that interested in it.

●●●

I do however, think something stinks about this particular industry in general and here's as good a place to talk about that as any.

First off, the industry is perfectly legal, and was deliberately created by a Minister for Justice. There's no question of illegality or perfidity here. There are those who think it's even beneficial, and in the ideal they have a good point, but in the real world there's this big stinking problem that they're ignoring and it's this:

There is no regulation of firearms training in Ireland.

There's absolutely none. Not one single law, not one single official who oversees it, not one national standard, nothing. Almost everyone and his dog can happily rock up and start a course to train people in how to use firearms (and if you want to see how badly that can go, just google the phrase "Baron Shorttarse"). We all know of RFDs - and we're not going to name them specifically here because the Defamation Act is tiresome at best - who run courses over the course of an hour or less that people then use as proof of competency in licence applications, and we also know of competency courses run by national bodies and by ranges. And, be fair now, some of these are good basic safety courses run by well-meaning competent people. A few of those people even have the kind of training you need to teach something (which is an incredibly different set of training and skills to those you need to do that thing well). And a very very few people in Ireland are actually really good coaches, but they're really in a different industry so I'm not counting them here. I'm thinking of the basic safety/basic instruction field here.

The problem is, while we have a lot of good people trying their best, we have nobody vetting these courses to weed out the chancers setting up courses to make money who aren't actually teaching basic safety well. There's no standards for the courses to meet, no curriculum, no training of the trainers, nothing. There aren't even any consumer rights really, because you can go to person X, pay them for a course, do the course and "pass" it (sorry, but if there's no standard for the course, saying you pass or fail is a meaningless statement, it's like saying you won the race on the M50 on the way to work) -- and then the local Garda Superintendent can say "No, I won't accept this as proof of competence" and you can't get your money back, you can't sue person X for failing to provide the proof of competence you were seeking, you have no recourse at all. This is why we've been saying for years to ask the Super for the course first, which is a bad state of affairs to start with because it results in an effective state-sponsored monopoly in each garda district, but the alternative seemed worse.

Incidentally, yes, there are non-national bodies who will certify courses (you're all thinking of the NRA, but many others do it too, like the NSRA, the UK NRA, the ISSF, and many others, and people have been doing those courses in Ireland for a while now). But those non-national certifications mean absolutely zip in a licence application. The NRA says you're safe? Well that's nice, but unless your local Garda accepts that, it means nothing. And if he or she declines to accept it, then you have no recourse - the lack of standards means the Gardai have no requirement to accept non-national accreditations here.

And this is before you get to the thorny problem of what happens if someone is trained in one of these courses, doesn't learn basic safety but "passes" anyway and then goes on to hurt themselves, or someone else, or worse. Who's legally liable then? And what will the fallout be for the community as a whole?

We got dumped in this appalling situation by a Minister for Justice who, frankly, made a huge mess out of the Ministry he was given and who then just flounced off out of public life completely afterwards, but nobody's ever cleaned up the mess he made. Instead, some (not all) people have been opportunistically profiting off it and exacerbating the situation.

For example, we've been talking here about safety courses and proof of competence as though the former was the sole method to gain the latter; and not only is that not the case, it is deliberately not the case. Courses were never seen as being the norm, they were seen as being one way to provide competence, a new way, brought in alongside the established ways of direct instruction that we'd had since before the founding of the state. There's nothing wrong with having courses, if they're done right, but they were never supposed to take over from everything else, and especially not when they were this unregulated.

And this current push to try to get us to introduce graduated licencing is just going to make things even worse by increasing the demands for proof of competence and creating even more opportunities for commercial exploitation.

So like I said, the industry is perfectly legal. But it stinks. It's not safe, it's not good for the sport, it's not good for those in the sport, and it's only good for a few who are profiting off it. It badly needs regulation and standardisation and groups like FETAC to get involved for that to happen. And absolutely nobody is pushing for that to happen anymore.

This kind of thing in this thread? This is at the very low end of possible bad outcomes.

meathstevie

Am I missing something here folks ?

In summary what essentially happened is that an unsavoury character decided to attend a course ran by an organisation involving a range shooting element. Neither the organiser nor the range have the means of carrying out any meaningful background check and did not break any law by admitting that individual.

As a conclusion that individual now has a certificate that entitles him to sweet nothing as the relevant licencing authorities NPWS and AGS will more than likely be very reluctant to issue any firearms or deer hunting licence to this individual because of previous behaviour.

cavan shooter

meathstevie wrote: »

Am I missing something here folks ?

In summary what essentially happened is that an unsavoury character decided to attend a course ran by an organisation involving a range shooting element. Neither the organiser nor the range have the means of carrying out any meaningful background check and did not break any law by admitting that individual.

As a conclusion that individual now has a certificate that entitles him to sweet nothing as the relevant licencing authorities NPWS and AGS will more than likely be very reluctant to issue any firearms or deer hunting licence to this individual because of previous behaviour.

Yes...and anyone running courses is at a roll of a dice who attends, his background, agenda and there is really no checks out there other than standard due diligence in order to prevent something like this happening again. We take people at face value.