Licence revoked on allegation

wirehairmax

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-man-told-father-i-will-get-you-where-it-hurts-i-will-get-the-guns-taken-off-you-974732.html

Just goes to show how much licenced firearms owners have to be on the right side of the law at all times, even the very suggestion or allegation of wrongdoing can see your licences revoked as judges are only too happy to do.

tudderone

wirehairmax wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-man-told-father-i-will-get-you-where-it-hurts-i-will-get-the-guns-taken-off-you-974732.html

Just goes to show how much licenced firearms owners have to be on the right side of the law at all times, even the very suggestion or allegation of wrongdoing can see your licences revoked as judges are only too happy to do.

The father should run that little sh1te of a son down the road and tell him never to darken the door again.

Car99

tudderone wrote: »

The father should run that little sh1te of a son down the road and tell him never to darken the door again.

Maybe he did but unless the son retracts the allegation he'll never shoot again.

clivej

Good security in that house
"............... and that his father made an attempt to go for a firearm up against the wall in the bedroom"

Peregrinus

Reading between the lines of the newspaper report, while the father denies that he made any attempt to "go for a firearm up against the wall in the bedroom", there's no suggestion that he disputed that the there was a firearm up against the wall in the bedroom. Whereas of course it should have been stored securely in a gun safe fixed to a solid structure. So the basis for revocation of the certificate might not be the (disputed) allegation that the father "went for the gun" during a family argument, but the (undisputed?) allegation that the gun was not being properly kept.

The pigeon man

I think the real issue here is that the father was involved in a physical altercation. I don't believe that he went for the gun but I think the Gardaí revoked the licenses because they don't want firearms in a house where there are physical altercations occuring.

useurowname

As previous with Pigeon Man.
Gardai are known to remove guns from houses where there is physical rows.
Personally I think it is the right thing to do.

cookimonster

Peregrinus wrote: »

Reading between the lines of the newspaper report, ....... firearm up against the wall in the bedroom", .......

The pigeon man
I think the real issue here is that the father was involved in a physical altercation.

I'm tending to think this way, an "unsecured firearm' and a 'fight' both are and could be construed as being contra to the conditions of firearms ownership.

Having said that, there are plenty of cases were licences have been revoked from law abiding persons, after false allegations have been made or some one feels threatened.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

I'm tending to think this way, an "unsecured firearm' and a 'fight' both are and could be construed as being contra to the conditions of firearms ownership..

Its called, in law, as having an intemperate character. It's reason for refusal as well as revocation.

I agree that not disputing the gun was outside a safe is bad, but the bigger and more troubling problem here is Red Flag gun laws that have existed without anyone really knowing it.

It happened to my Uncle years ago. His, now ex, wife was a piece of work and like the article told him she would have his guns taken from him so made an allegation that he threatened her and they took his guns and revoked his licenses. Took him over 7 years to get a 22lr back and he has never been able to license anything bigger since.


According to the Act after being refused the appeal in court he [the Father] now has 60 days to sell the guns/have AGS sell them or they can be destroyed by AGS. If it were me I'd have them transferred to an RFD to be sold, collect the money, keep my nose clean for a few years and then apply again and try and build up my reputation. He'll have to declare he ad licenses revoked and firearms removed, but it's not an automatic reason to never hold a gun again.

useurowname

Very common where their are allegations of domestic violence for Gardai to remove guns.
I’ve heard of it several times
I’m afraid for this family there is very likely to be bigger troubles than the man losing his guns
Very Sad

meathstevie

The pigeon man wrote: »

I think the real issue here is that the father was involved in a physical altercation. I don't believe that he went for the gun but I think the Gardaí revoked the licenses because they don't want firearms in a house where there are physical altercations occuring.

Fairly standard these days, domestic incidents will see the guns leave in the boot of a squad car as a figure of speech.

It may seem unfair and maybe a bit over the top in some if not most cases but looking from the Garda angle it is one potential risk factor removed from a potentially volatile situation.

As Cass has stated, it’s not a conclusive reason why new licenses may not be granted in the future.

Cass

I'm not advocating for no action because in such circumstances AGS have a duty of care/protection and if they fail to act and something happens its bad for everyone.

My concern is using these laws as a tool to punish or enact some sort some of vendetta against someone you are having a disagreement with. These is no checking done prior to removal of the firearms, which again i understand as its safer to remove them and then give them back, but the problem lies in the fact that rarely if ever are the firearms given back because checks are not done after the removal.

useurowname

Unfortunately you are in a situation where an allegation remains.
It is very unlikely that anyone who makes such an allegation or reports having being threatened will ever retract it
From the Gardas perspective it’s one persons word against another.
I’ve never heard of anyone getting their gun back in these situations.

Grizzly 45

It's an utter dirty misuse of the law,that was also a dirty little SHT in court in this case the judge should have thrown it out as the little prck refused to testify or give evidence...The father could/should appeal it to the high court,as the states only body of evidence,that we can see from this report is that statement from that son.With no statement ,there is no case or witness.It's one word against another.After all,there are enough drug dealers and murderers and their types,who have suddenly developed chronic amnesia when asked to testify and bear witness against another party,and where the case on a lot more serious issues than a domestic tiff .

What to do if your better half decides to become an utter nasty piece of work in a domestic situation?MOVE YOUR GUNS ASAP into a RFD.Like within 12/24 hours. You have taken them out of the situation,and with a DATED recipt you can prove that your other is lying thru their teeth if they make a claim that you were going to do harm if the AGS in gun grabbing mode show up at your door.You can still shoot them,albeit having to collect and deposit them, and it shows you did your bit to take them out of harms way too,thus making it rather difficult to justify a revocation order.
Funny that these people think that once the guns are removed from the house that they are then some how safe if there is a genuine threat.Obviously forgetting things like ..Well,the entire kitchen drawer of knives,or being smotherd with a pillow.:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

useurowname wrote: »

Unfortunately you are in a situation where an allegation remains.
It is very unlikely that anyone who makes such an allegation or reports having being threatened will ever retract it
From the Gardas perspective it’s one persons word against another.
I’ve never heard of anyone getting their gun back in these situations.

This also might change if our perjury laws are updated.As they are now,there is no comeback on a perjurer or false witness bar a court telling off.If however there is a spot of jail time involved it might suddenly sort a lot of wasted court time too.

useurowname

...and with the RFD the gun will stay

useurowname

And again it comes back to one persons word against another
Try getting to the bottom of matters such as domestic or familial disputes.
I know of family cases going through the courts for years, only ones making anything from them are solicitors and barristers ..

The pigeon man

Interesting here. I would have a serious concern over the quality of the evidence. There was no statement taken from the son and he didn't appear as a witness.

So how can the appeal not be granted?

The Garda is speaking for the son in court. That's hearsay. I would have thought the son would have to appear to give substantial evidence to deny the appeal.

Also is there not a necessity to prove this beyond reasonable doubt? It doesn't seem like there was any proof that an altercation occurred.

useurowname

Reasonable doubt if the the court is to convict.

From my reading , there was a physical altercation, son said dad went for a gun, gun was not locked away . Therefore standards expected were not met.

Enough there for the Gardai to be duely concerned and remove firearms

Tough call on the appeal

Grizzly 45

...and with the RFD the gun will stay

Err... NO!.I know of at leat four cases where the liscenses wer quietly regranted,and in one case involving TWO restricted firearms in fairness the Cheif wouldnt even entertain the complaint made against the gun owner,as she was a known Head the ball to AGS herself. But he was smart enough to do this when she started up her accuasiotns.

useurowname wrote: »

And again it comes back to one persons word against another
Try getting to the bottom of matters such as domestic or familial disputes.
I know of family cases going through the courts for years, only ones making anything from them are solicitors and barristers ..

Talk to me about it...i used to make my living from gathering evidence for matrimonial disputes.;)
Exactly,but in this particular case it seems to be one aggrevied party ho is less than creditable is been given the benefit of the doubt.

From my reading , there was a physical altercation, son said dad went for a gun, gun was not locked away . Therefore standards expected were not met.

Enough there for the Gardai to be duely concerned and remove firearms

Tough call on the appeal

SAYS an "involved party" who refuses to stand over his testimony, and has withdrawn his statement,or not made and signed a written statement. So IOW a non creditable,or existing witness in any form.
So all we have is basically " Well he told us you honour that his dad thumped him,and he "said" he would get his dad back an get his guns taken off him.An we dont like guns anyway,so there! But he wont back it up under oath or in writing!""Surprised the judge didnt throw this out at this stage. Because if this is what passes for evidence now in an Irish court in firearms involved matters...We should ALL be very afraid.

tudderone

useurowname wrote: »

And again it comes back to one persons word against another
Try getting to the bottom of matters such as domestic or familial disputes.
I know of family cases going through the courts for years, only ones making anything from them are solicitors and barristers ..

I got attacked by a member of a family of well known scummers years ago. I reported it to the gardai and they were utterly useless. About six weeks after i had made a statement, i went to the station to see what the state of play was. "No other witnesses, your word against his, no evidence".

Where there is one persons word against another, as it is here, isn't it a case of guilty until found innocent ?

useurowname

tudderone wrote: »

I got attacked by a member of a family of well known scummers years ago. I reported it to the gardai and they were utterly useless. About six weeks after i had made a statement, i went to the station to see what the state of play was. "No other witnesses, your word against his, no evidence".

Where there is one persons word against another, as it is here, isn't it a case of guilty until found innocent ?

In criminal law it has to be a case of beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One persons word against another’s is 50/50.

Cass

"One person's word against another".

Interesting concept.

Here are my thoughts on that. I've been a gun owner for almost 30 years. I've gone through background check after background check with every renewal, substitution and application. I've made a point of not getting into trouble, not coming to the attention of An Gardaí, and not putting myself into a position where i could compromise the tens of thousands of Euro and the reputation i've spent garnered over the years with a single, reckless act. This includes even the smallest issue like a parking ticket or speeding fine. Never got one.

All the above means i've earned a degree of belief and a level of credibility that should grant me a level of "leeway" against frivolous accusations. I say should as it won't happen, but it should.

meathstevie

useurowname wrote: »

In criminal law it has to be a case of beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One persons word against another’s is 50/50.

That’s absolutely correct, the burden of proof in a criminal case is to that standard. The granting of a firearms certificate is not.

The legislation gives deciding authority to certain Gardaí who can be brought to court to explain the motivation for their decisions and to determine if the decision made was legally sound.

It is not a criminal trail issue, it’s an appeal against an administrative decision and once the Superintendent or Chief Superintendent can demonstrate that they made a properly motivated legally sound decision that’s it. The law as it is gives these senior Gardaí very substantial discretion and sole responsibility.

A judge is never going to go against a decision with a reasonably motivated element of protecting public safety.

Cass

meathstevie wrote: »

The law as it is gives these senior Gardaí very substantial discretion and sole responsibility.

Well, no.

In 2009 the law changed removing the persona designata status from AGS. IOW they no longer have sole discretion as to whether a person gets a licence as the court can now instruct AGS to either review the application or instruct them to issue it.

A judge is never going to go against a decision with a reasonably motivated element of protecting public safety.

It has been done a few times the most recent was a year or so ago in Kildare when the Judge instructed AGS to issue two restricted licenses that were previously refused without grounds.

Grizzly 45

Also,this "public saftey" thing is wearing abit thin too.If you have been hounded and harrieid by AGS for backround and medical checks and must hold your self to a higher standard than most people out there.As well as getting in costly security for your guns.How can they keep saying they are worried about you being a risk for public saftey?Or that you will harm your bitchay beloved by removing the guns.But leaving the kitchen drawer full of knives?Them most common weapon used in domestic disputes.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

useurowname

Cass wrote: »

"One person's word against another".

Interesting concept.

Here are my thoughts on that. I've been a gun owner for almost 30 years. I've gone through background check after background check with every renewal, substitution and application. I've made a point of not getting into trouble, not coming to the attention of An Gardaí, and not putting myself into a position where i could compromise the tens of thousands of Euro and the reputation i've spent garnered over the years with a single, reckless act. This includes even the smallest issue like a parking ticket or speeding fine. Never got one.

All the above means i've earned a degree of belief and a level of credibility that should grant me a level of "leeway" against frivolous accusations. I say should as it won't happen, but it should.

All of that means that you can have a gun, and you do.

Other people get themselves in trouble, some I’m sure through misfortune or not entirely or at all their own fault and may lose their license.

Notwithstanding you sound to be of very good character, certainly more careful than I about where and when you park the car .. but I don’t know what leeway having a gun license would have in terms of exemption from accusation.

Cass

useurowname wrote: »

but I don’t know what leeway having a gun license would have in terms of exemption from accusation.

Not exemption, but credited with a degree of credibility above the average person.

This is not just me, and my post above was not meant as a back patting exercise. It applies to all gun owners and members of the shooting community. Look at yourself. How many convictions of theft, car offences, assault, etc. have you? None i'd imagine. So when i say me or we i am referring to the community as a whole.

So if someone were to accuse "us" of doing "X". An Gardaí should, and could, look at our record, see the dozens of background checks we've been through, home visits, no other (outside of guns/licensing) issues or convictions and then form the opinion that in order to be so "squeaky clean" we must be of a certain character which would be in stark contrast to the accusations being made against us.

Its common sense.

As you said even those with the best records can and do make the occasional f**k up, but in the grand scheme of things we [the shooting community] must be of a higher caliber (excuse the pun) than that great unwashed simply to partake in the sport we are in.

Its akin to making an accusation of bias against a Judge, theft by a member of An Gardaí, etc. etc. They hold their positions because of extreme vetting and being given a degree of belief above the average person because of the work they had to go through to get to their position.

Same with gun owners. The longer we are gun owners the higher that level of belief/credibility.

meathstevie

Cass wrote: »

Well, no.

In 2009 the law changed removing the persona designata status from AGS. IOW they no longer have sole discretion as to whether a person gets a licence as the court can now instruct AGS to either review the application or instruct them to issue it.


It has been done a few times the most recent was a year or so ago in Kildare when the Judge instructed AGS to issue two restricted licenses that were previously refused without grounds.

And rightly so Cass, a planning decision by the county council can be appealed and in the same way an administrative decision by a senior Garda can be appealed. That still leaves the senior Garda with the deciding authority and responsibility unless they have made an error in their decision when the judge will tell them to correct it.

The case in Kildare you refer to was based on lack of grounds for refusal so not reasonably motivated and as a consequence not legally sound. You can’t say no, or yes, because you can. You have to explain why and document the reasoning for it.

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Also,this "public saftey" thing is wearing abit thin too.If you have been hounded and harrieid by AGS for backround and medical checks and must hold your self to a higher standard than most people out there.As well as getting in costly security for your guns.How can they keep saying they are worried about you being a risk for public saftey?Or that you will harm your bitchay beloved by removing the guns.But leaving the kitchen drawer full of knives?Them most common weapon used in domestic disputes.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

100% with you on “public safety” being abused as a catch all by some. Public safety just like any other grounds for granting or refusing or revoking has to be documented and motivated.

A classic example would be the whole suppressor saga, you can’t just simply refuse every application for one because of “public safety”.

On the other hand a politician like Dermot Ahern done exactly that in 2008/09. In possession of very solid evidence to the contrary he introduced legislation on the grounds that licensed full bore pistols were a risk to the public.

tudderone

meathstevie wrote: »

On the other hand a politician like Dermot Ahern done exactly that in 2008/09. In possession of very solid evidence to the contrary he introduced legislation on the grounds that licensed full bore pistols were a risk to the public.

No he didn't, he made no secret of his personal dislike for firearms in civilian hands and hid that behind the public safety excuse.

slipperyox

As a side note.

I believe a will left to the minister of finance cannot be contested.:)

Cass

meathstevie wrote: »

That still leaves the senior Garda with the deciding authority and responsibility unless they have made an error in their decision when the judge will tell them to correct it.

I think we're on the same page, but just to clarify, they don't have to have made a mistake. The courts were introduced in the 2009 Act so refusals cannot be made arbitrarily. A Super/Chief Super will make their decision and even if they use legal sound reason the courts are still an avenue if the person feels it's wrong.

IOW, and as discussed about the public safety issue, a high court case(s) ended with the judge saying that while public safety is paramount it cannot be used as grounds for refusal with no supporting evidence that there is an actual threat to public safety.

You can’t say no, or yes, because you can. You have to explain why and document the reasoning for it.

They always had to, since 2009, but were never "pushed" to do so. The Commissioner's updated guidelines clarified this and improved upon it by stating Supers/Chief Supers had to be concise and specific as to the grounds for their refusals.

Chiparus

Could it be said in this case that there was evicence of intemperate behaviour ?

Cass

Possibly, but i'm not going to risk breaching technical contempt of court by second guessing the judgement/ruling.

Brontosaurus

Burden of proof, innocent before proven guilty and property rights are alien concepts in Ireland, it would seem.

Cass

Those are rights, firearm ownership is not a right. Under the law its a privilege and the law says specifically that a license can be revoked at any time for whatever reason the authorising person deems necessary.

So in this case the Super would claim public safety and there is not a judge, as is evident by the OP, that would argue against that.

meathstevie

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Burden of proof, innocent before proven guilty and property rights are alien concepts in Ireland, it would seem.

The granting or revoking of a license is not a criminal matter. It’s an administrative decision that happens to be made by a senior Garda as that is who is appointed by law to make that decision.

Appeals against that decision are dealt with by the District Court, again not as a criminal matter but as a review of a decision making process.

Nobody will walk away from that District Court hearing with a conviction as it’s not a criminal trial. There may be criminal matters connected to the revoking of a license but that’s a different story altogether.

If there’s no criminal issues at the basis of the refusal or revoking decision the worst that you can expect as the outcome of the hearing is a big bill and no license.

Grizzly 45

Liscensing Def...
When the Govt takes away your right to do somthing and sells it back to you with lots of terms& conditions attached.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

When the Govt takes away your right...........

No right to firearms. Only applies to America.

Brontosaurus

Cass wrote: »

No right to firearms. Only applies to America.

Could argue that a firearm is your property. Which makes one question if we have any property rights in the first place.

Licensing means you're essentially getting a lease for a firearm from the state, which can evidently be revoked at mere hearsay.


But I suppose the same could be said for vehicles and anything else that requires a license.

Even worse than that however, it has to be renewed every 3 years for firearms, and at any point they could arbitrarily decide you no longer "need" it, and if you wrongly get refused that's a lot of money and time needed in order to appeal that not everyone has.

It is indeed essentially "You're lucky I'm even allowing you to have this thing, now pay up or I'll take it back".

I mean of course we don't want any eejit being able to access any firearm, but one has to be careful about where you decide to draw the line.

Cass

Brontosaurus wrote: »

Could argue that a firearm is your property.

It is your property. You can buy as many guns as you like, just not possess them without a license.

Which makes one question if we have any property rights in the first place.

Unlike a car where if you don't have a driver's license you can still have the car at your door firearms are legislated for in such a way that to possess one without a license is an offence.

So firearms are not property in the "typical" way.

Licensing means you're essentially getting a lease for a firearm from the state,

No. It means they [Government] are saying they grant you the authority to possess a firearm. You own the firearm so it cannot be leased, loaned or borrowed to you by anyone.

which can evidently be revoked at mere hearsay.

In essence, yes.

But I suppose the same could be said for vehicles and anything else that requires a license.

As said above firearms stand alone in their status as property and the ability to possess them via licensing.

Even worse than that however, it has to be renewed every 3 years for firearms, and at any point they could arbitrarily decide you no longer "need" it,

I wouldn't say arbitrarily, and not splitting hairs, but the law is clear that a good reason must be provided if a license is revoked and that reason must be given in writing to the licensee.

and if you wrongly get refused that's a lot of money and time needed in order to appeal that not everyone has.

Its a lot of hassle alright and the money aspect can get high, but there is also the possibility of being awarded costs if you win your case and the judge grants you costs. But that is not a guarantee.

It is indeed essentially "You're lucky I'm even allowing you to have this thing, now pay up or I'll take it back".

In a simplified way, yes.

I mean of course we don't want any eejit being able to access any firearm, but one has to be careful about where you decide to draw the line.

Hence the licensing process. It is not a foolproof method but it will eliminate the numpties from the off and those that are successful will be under constant scrutiny.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

No right to firearms. Only applies to America.

No need to be so pendantic... It can apply to many things that are liscensed.:)

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

No need to be so pendantic...

Pedantic - excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous.

Its far from a minor detail. The Americans have the second amendment, we have no such constitutional right, nor any right to firearms through any of the acts, SIs or even EU directives.

So, far from being pedantic, it's a major point. If firearm ownership was a right we could demand most things instead of begging for them or hoping they're not taken away.

It can apply to many things that are liscensed.:)

Such as?

I've seen this said in America where their constitution gives them such rights, but no other country in the world has the same rights as Americans, or more accurately in the same language/vein as America.

So what rights are the Government taking from us and "selling back" under the guise of licensing?

BTW that is not a trick question. I cannot think of one but if you have any or believe any exist i'd be interested to know as a right is constitutional given and cannot be taken from you.