Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Stolen guns recovered

  • 18-03-2020 7:56pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,226 ✭✭✭ pablo128


    Just an idle thought. Several firearms were recovered by Gardai in Tallaght yesterday following a chase. These included 3 shotguns reported stolen. Provided they are in good condition, not cut down etc, would these be returned to their owners, or would the fact they were stolen in the first place be reason not to return them?

    And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭ kirving


    pablo128 wrote: »
    And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

    I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,450 ✭✭✭ Vizzy


    I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

    Bullsh?t argument to be honest.

    Would the same hold true if your car was stolen ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    I would imagine it would be down to how they were stored when not in use, ie. if they were not in a safe and stuck in the corner of a wardrobe or closet, the owner could be in trouble.


  • Registered Users Posts: 519 ✭✭✭ PSXDupe


    I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

    Statements like this is why our sports are always under attack.

    If the person had the firearms stored correctly and followed the law and any additional (if any) requirements set down by the super in the area. Then why would they not be entitled to have their firearm returned.

    If criminals want to get their hands on firearms there are many way for get them. All a firearm owner can do is their best, safe, alarm, CCTV. They will not prevent a criminal from getting a firearm if they really want it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 678 ✭✭✭ wirehairmax


    Speaking from experience, once the case has been concluded, and once the firearms are in good condition and safe to use, the owner will get them back providing their security measures are adequate and to the satisfaction of the local Superintendant.
    I got 2 out of 3 back, my beautiful Beretta didnt come home unfortunately as the f****** had cut the stock and barrel off. It was given to my local RFD and wasnt worth fixing.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Speaking from experience, once the case has been concluded, and once the firearms are in good condition and safe to use, the owner will get them back providing their security measures are adequate and to the satisfaction of the local Superintendant.
    I got 2 out of 3 back, my beautiful Beretta didnt come home unfortunately as the f****** had cut the stock and barrel off. It was given to my local RFD and wasnt worth fixing.

    That would boil my wizz :mad:. Anyway i thought sawn off shotguns were the firearm equivilent of the ford granada or mk2 jag, something from the criminal worlds good old days of the 60's and 70's ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭ kirving


    Vizzy wrote: »
    Bullsh?t argument to be honest.

    Would the same hold true if your car was stolen ?

    While a stolen car might be used in a murder, it's equally likely to be broken down for parts and shipped abroad. The same cannot reasonably be said for a stolen firearm.

    In any case, if your car is deemed to be at high risk of being stolen, you pay higher insurance. If it actually is stolen, your insurance will go up. If it continues to happen, you will be denied insurance.
    PSXDupe wrote: »
    Statements like this is why our sports are always under attack.

    If the person had the firearms stored correctly and followed the law and any additional (if any) requirements set down by the super in the area. Then why would they not be entitled to have their firearm returned.

    If criminals want to get their hands on firearms there are many way for get them. All a firearm owner can do is their best, safe, alarm, CCTV. They will not prevent a criminal from getting a firearm if they really want it.

    Even following conditions for storage down to the letter, they may still be a soft target for criminals. IMO, someone's entitlement to own a firearm unfortunately comes secondary to the risk of it being stolen. Should a licence be withdrawn after the second theft, the third?

    A question, because I don't know. Are the majority of stolen firearms taken during a "normal" burglary, or specifically targeted and cut from a safe?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,332 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    From someone who has had a firearm stolen and recoverd a decade later in pss poor condition and chopped down.AGS wanted to destroy it straight away,but I asked them to hold off to see was it feasabile to replace the barrel and stock.[Winchester 1300XTR pump action]

    It wasn't economically viable to do so.So I let it go. At the time I had other guns in the house,and they all survived the raid,as I had practised ramdom dispersal of the guns and parts and stashed them all over the place[Well pre 2008 ] Which IMHO is a better and secure option than having a whole safe load of goodies in one location to be attacked. So AGS had no problem re issing a liscense for the stolen gun.
    So it will depend on how badly chopped and stored ,as said your gun was ,and whether you can source parts for it.As it is still now your property,you still have to sign off on the destruction of it post the case being closed.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭ Tara Wide Whistle-blower


    Vizzy wrote: »
    Bullsh?t argument to be honest.

    Would the same hold true if your car was stolen ?

    You don’t need a license to own a car. There are no storage requirements for where you put your car when you’re not using it. Stupid comparison.


  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,138 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 2011


    pablo128 wrote: »
    And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

    This can only be decided on a case by case basis.
    Nothing else makes sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    From someone who has had a firearm stolen and recoverd a decade later in pss poor condition and chopped down.AGS wanted to destroy it straight away,but I asked them to hold off to see was it feasabile to replace the barrel and stock.[Winchester 1300XTR pump action]

    It wasn't economically viable to do so.So I let it go. At the time I had other guns in the house,and they all survived the raid,as I had practised ramdom dispersal of the guns and parts and stashed them all over the place[Well pre 2008 ] Which IMHO is a better and secure option than having a whole safe load of goodies in one location to be attacked. So AGS had no problem re issing a liscense for the stolen gun.
    So it will depend on how badly chopped and stored ,as said your gun was ,and whether you can source parts for it.As it is still now your property,you still have to sign off on the destruction of it post the case being closed.

    I have all the guns in the safe, but with the fore-ends or bolts removed and placed in another safe thats hidden. So even if the scummers do manage to open or take the safe the guns are useless.

    Another tip, if you are good at welding or know someone who is, get two lengths of chain the width of the safe welded in at the height of the triggers, pass it through the trigger guards and padlock the guns into the safe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,316 ✭✭✭ Pkiernan


    Shocked to see victim blaming and punishment posts on here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Shocked to see victim blaming and punishment posts on here.

    It depends. Safes are cheap enough now. But i still know people who throw their gun under the bed or on top of the wardrobe. No excuse for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭ kirving


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Shocked to see victim blaming and punishment posts on here.

    Victim blaming?

    If, for any reason whatsoever, an owner cannot be keep their firearm out of criminal hands, then they shouldn't have them (on that premises).

    Whether an opportunistic teenager finds it in the hallway, or a hardened criminal cuts a safe from the wall, the end result is the same.

    I have sympathy for the latter case of course, but nevertheless the risk of a another robbery is dramatically increased.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Victim blaming?

    If, for any reason whatsoever, an owner cannot be keep their firearm out of criminal hands, then they shouldn't have them (on that premises).

    Whether an opportunistic teenager finds it in the hallway, or a hardened criminal cuts a safe from the wall, the end result is the same.

    I have sympathy for the latter case of course, but nevertheless the risk of a another robbery is dramatically increased.

    Even banks get robbed. No level of security is 100%.

    Would you remove someone's driving licence if their car was stolen? It could be used in a robbery. Or worse than that, a getaway car killed a woman about a week ago.

    You are being too harsh on responsible gun owners.


  • Registered Users Posts: 759 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    Caught +10 over the speed limit :-
    confiscate car
    lose licence for life..

    Same bizarre logic, only way to be sure to fully protect the public from a repeat in the future....Who needs to speed so one offence and you're done.

    Only important difference in this example is that the offender is being punished, not the victim.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭ kirving


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Even banks get robbed. No level of security is 100%.

    Would you remove someone's driving licence if their car was stolen? It could be used in a robbery. Or worse than that, a getaway car killed a woman about a week ago.

    You are being too harsh on responsible gun owners.

    Banks do get robbed, but if it does happen, cash stored there is severely limited in future, and often onerous security measures are employed which inconvenience other customers.

    I don't get the car analogy - you don't need a licence to own a car. A stolen firearm is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in serious crime than a stolen car.

    Genuine question, how many robberies from a single owner should it take before their license is revoked? For example, whether due to negligence, or targeting by criminals, guns keep falling into criminal hands. What should be done in that scenario?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Banks do get robbed, but if it does happen, cash stored there is severely limited in future, and often onerous security measures are employed which inconvenience other customers.

    I don't get the car analogy - you don't need a licence to own a car. A stolen firearm is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in serious crime than a stolen car.

    Genuine question, how many robberies from a single owner should it take before their license is revoked? For example, whether due to negligence, or targeting by criminals, guns keep falling into criminal hands. What should be done in that scenario?

    So a victim of crime, the chap who has his private property (not a crime in itself....yet) stolen, even though he has taken reasonable and responsible precautions with his security is the one penalised ?

    Doesn't sound in the least bit fair to me. If he as i said earlier had chucked the gun under the bed or behind the door in the kitchen, fair enough, he did not take precautions.

    Where does it all end though ? You cannot own a nice telly, hi-fi, shed full of tools because anto scoby round the corner has velcro fingers ?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Victim blaming?
    By saying the person should not have a firearm again is akin to making the person who is the victim of a/the crime responsible for the actions for the criminal.

    In case you are not aware An Gardaí inspect people's home and security measures before granting a firearms license (this is in addition to the 9 page, 3 month, medical waiver, and background check each applicant goes through). As such An Gardaí signed off on the security measures as being adequate. So if An Gardaí are satisfied then how can anyone question the level of security?
    If, for any reason whatsoever, an owner cannot be keep their firearm out of criminal hands, then they shouldn't have them (on that premises).
    You cannot stop a criminal with determination. Look at the ATM robberies, they stole diggers and excavators and pulled the walls out. Point being short of having a moat and sharks with fricking lasers on their heads nothing is theft proof.
    Whether an opportunistic teenager finds it in the hallway
    You don't understand the firearms laws in this country. That in itself is a breach of the firearms Act so wouldn't happen and if it were the case then the firearm owner has no excuse and would have the firearm license revoked.
    , or a hardened criminal cuts a safe from the wall, the end result is the same.
    Not even close.

    The above example of the teenager is negligence on behalf of the firearm owner(s) whereas the criminal aspect is something you try to prevent, but cannot guarantee to be 100% successful.
    I have sympathy for the latter case of course, but nevertheless the risk of a another robbery is dramatically increased.
    Possibly and again a knowledge of the firearm acts and mindset of AGS would tell you the would ask for a higher level of security which can include but is not limited to full monitored house alarm with GSM backup, separate safes for different parts of the same gun (so its not ll stored together), hidden safes with key components, etc, etc.
    Banks do get robbed, but if it does happen, cash stored there is severely limited in future, and often onerous security measures are employed which inconvenience other customers.
    Going by your line of thinking at some point the bank should not have any money as it cannot be trusted not ot be robbed again.
    I don't get the car analogy - you don't need a licence to own a car.
    Nor do you need a license to own a gun. You do need a license to use BOTH.
    A stolen firearm is orders of magnitude more likely to be involved in serious crime than a stolen car.
    Have you data to support that assertion? Otherwise it's just an opinion. AGS have said themselves that as few firearms at the scene of criminal acts are recovered they cannot say if the firearms usd are those stolen or illegally imported.

    Also approx. 13,000 cars per year are stolen yet according to AGS approx 200 firearms per year are stolen. Those firearm figures are badly misleading too as some years its far less and others a little higher and they don't account for the fact that the majority are stolen in one large lot from a firearm dealer.

    So there are 65 more cars than firearms stolen and AGs cannot say what becomes of the firearms, but you say they are "by orders of magnitude" used more in crime.
    Genuine question, how many robberies from a single owner should it take before their license is revoked?
    There is no number because by doing so you punish the owner for the criminal actions of others.

    By doing so your (firearm owner) behaviour is now no longer the basis for how you are treated.
    For example, whether due to negligence, or targeting by criminals, guns keep falling into criminal hands. What should be done in that scenario?

    There are 18 firearms acts, 63 SI, 2 EU directives which directly or indirectly govern the ownership of firearms. As i said above we go through one of the toughest application processes in not only EUrope but the world and at every step it is overseen and signed off by An gardaí.

    If someone is negligent as a firearm owner they will be punished by fines, jail, both and loss of licenses/firearms. If they are the victim of a crime they should be treated as a victim and as AGS have said their security was sufficient they are not to be held accountable for the actions of criminals. Ina court case, the name of which escapes me, the Justice ruled in a case involving this very topic that the firearm owner cannot be punished simply because of the nature of the items stolen when that firearm owner fulfilled all criteria laid out by the legislation and approved by An Gardaí.

    The guy was given his guns and licenses back.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Cass wrote: »


    Have you data to support that assertion? Otherwise it's just an opinion. AGS have said themselves that as few firearms at the scene of criminal acts are recovered they cannot say if the firearms usd are those stolen or illegally imported.

    Also approx. 13,000 cars per year are stolen yet according to AGS approx 200 firearms per year are stolen. Those firearm figures are badly misleading too as some years its far less and others a little higher and they don't account for the fact that the majority are stolen in one large lot from a firearm dealer.

    So there are 65 more cars than firearms stolen and AGs cannot say what becomes of the firearms, but you say they are "by orders of magnitude" used more in crime.

    I believe most stolen shotguns and rifles are stashed and used as a bargaining chip by criminals when caught. As i said earlier half joking, double barreled shotguns are very old hat in criminal circles, its imported Baikal pistols, and Glock pistols imported by the drugs gangs enmasse that are the weapon of choice.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/24/ukguns.news


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭ zeissman


    I know 6 people who had firearms stolen over the years.
    4 of them were at home when the raiders came and they were held at gunpoint and had to hand over their firearms.
    The other two homes were raided when the occupants were out.
    None of them lost their licences and they all replaced their firearms.
    None of them were ever targeted again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,261 ✭✭✭ garrettod


    I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

    Hi,

    Do you have a licenced firearm, or have direct experience of having had a licenced firearm stolen, perhaps ?

    I'm starting to wonder if your just a social media troll, tbh :-)

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,534 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    I don't think this is trolling. I think the chap has some questions and opinions and he is entitled to ask them here, as anyone is.

    Our responsibility is to answer those questions and where possible educate people. If they take that information on board then all the better, if not then that is their choice.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭ Cadpat_cowboy


    You don’t need a license to own a car. There are no storage requirements for where you put your car when you’re not using it. Stupid comparison.

    Can't put your car in a yellow box on double yellow lines when it's not being used/parked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭ dodderangler


    Pretty disgusted at lads here blaming the owners.
    Theres been smgunsmiths robbed for god sake in the past. With the right tools it's not that hard to get into a safe. Hope no one here ever gets robbed. Be terrible for people to blame them on it. Thatd all I'm saying about this now. Hubting and shooting community supposed to stand up for each other. Not put others down. Bad enough our sport is slowly disappearing as it is
    With majority of the world already against us as hunters now we have to turn against each other?
    Bad form altogether lads


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,179 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp


    Pretty disgusted at lads here blaming the owners.

    It's pretty much only one lad saying it and we don't know if he is a gun owner or not. I suspect not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭ tudderone


    Pretty disgusted at lads here blaming the owners.
    Theres been smgunsmiths robbed for god sake in the past. With the right tools it's not that hard to get into a safe. Hope no one here ever gets robbed. Be terrible for people to blame them on it. Thatd all I'm saying about this now. Hubting and shooting community supposed to stand up for each other. Not put others down. Bad enough our sport is slowly disappearing as it is
    With majority of the world already against us as hunters now we have to turn against each other?
    Bad form altogether lads

    What gave you that idea ? When the poop hits the fan, its everyman for himself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭ deerhunter1


    pablo128 wrote: »
    Just an idle thought. Several firearms were recovered by Gardai in Tallaght yesterday following a chase. These included 3 shotguns reported stolen. Provided they are in good condition, not cut down etc, would these be returned to their owners, or would the fact they were stolen in the first place be reason not to return them?

    And if someone had firearms stolen, would they lose their firearms licence over it?

    not not really,if the guns were stored legally no reason not to get them back.it may take a bit of time if required for a court case as evidence,but no reason why you would not get them back


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,614 ✭✭✭ deerhunter1


    I'd hope so. If the criminals were/are aware of their location, and managed to successfully steal them once, there's a high likelihood it could happen again.

    What a stupid immature comment:mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,226 ✭✭✭ pablo128


    not not really,if the guns were stored legally no reason not to get them back.it may take a bit of time if required for a court case as evidence,but no reason why you would not get them back

    Well just like anything else in life, some people wouldn't be as responsible or careful as others. As someone else has said, it should be decided on a case by case basis.

    Which leads to another question. How thorough would Gardai be after a firearms theft? Would the owner be interviewed and the premises properly examined, or do they get treated like any other break in?


Advertisement