Firearms Act 1925 - Sect 8

Rovi

Was just browsing through the Firearms Act 1925 (exciting stuff, huh???), and I noticed something about the wording.
The bit about people disentitled to hold a firearm cert contains the word ‘and’ rather than the word ‘or’ between the various categories.

Read it here-
http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/fa1925102/s8.html

My extensive legal training (L.A. Law, Perry Mason, etc, etc.) leads me to (wishfully) think that the use of the word ‘and’ means that in order for the Super NOT to issue you a cert, you’d need to conform to ALL the criteria

So, unless you are (a) under 15 years old, AND (b) have ‘intemperate’ habits, AND (c) are crazy, AND (d)&(e) are currently in or have done the jail in the last 5 years, AND (f) are being watched by the Guards, AND (g) are bound to keep the peace, the Super is OBLIGED to issue you a cert for ANY firearm that is not a ‘prohibited weapon’ (ie. flamethrowers, etc).

In my opinion

EXCELLENT!

The bill for this legal opinion will follow in due course

jaycee

Well Spotted .M'Lud ..!

Almost as good is a subsection about ammo...

the word "ammunition" (except where used in relation to a prohibited weapon)
means ammunition for a firearm but also includes grenades, bombs, and other
similar missiles whether the same are or are not capable of being used with a
firearm, and also includes any ingredient or component part of any such
ammunition or missile;

So..in effect ..all our wheel weights (Same stuff as as in bullets )
are prohibited .also that stockpile of weapons grade lead in the roof valleys and those nasty old fishing weights. Gasp.. :eek:

Sparks

Rovi wrote:

Was just browsing through the Firearms Act 1925 (exciting stuff, huh???), and I noticed something about the wording.
The bit about people disentitled to hold a firearm cert contains the word ‘and’ rather than the word ‘or’ between the various categories.

Yes, but it makes sense when read:

"8.—(1) The following persons are hereby declared to be disentitled to hold a
firearm certificate, that is to say:—
( a ) any person under the age of fifteen years, and ( b ) any person of intemperate habits, and ..."

So long as they repeat the "any person" bit, it makes sense.

jaycee wrote:

that stockpile of weapons grade lead in the roof valleys

Er... your lead flashing is a lead/arsenic/antimony alloy? :eek:

But yeah, it's a bit akward. Problem is that it's firearms legislation written by legislation experts but used by firearms experts. And of course, there's minimal communications between the two camps

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Yes, but it makes sense when read:

"8.—(1) The following persons are hereby declared to be disentitled to hold a
firearm certificate, that is to say:—
( a ) any person under the age of fifteen years, and ( b ) any person of intemperate habits, and ..."

So long as they repeat the "any person" bit, it makes sense.

I demand a re-trail!

Yeah, I know that's how it works, but it woulda been cool if the legislation could be interpretated to mean 'Will Issue', wouldn't it?

Sparks

Well, not really Rovi, because then any 17-year-old crazy person that applied would get a cert! :eek:
To be honest though, the legislation as written isn't that bad. I mean, it could do with improvement in places, but by and large it's livable with. It's the implementation and the unwritten bits (like the effective ban on pistols and fullbore rifles over .270) that make it such a pain.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Well, not really Rovi, because then any 17-year-old crazy person that applied would get a cert!

Surely clause (c)- "any person of unsound mind" would cover that one?:)

Sparks wrote:

To be honest though, the legislation as written isn't that bad. I mean, it could do with improvement in places, but by and large it's livable with. It's the implementation and the unwritten bits (like the effective ban on pistols and fullbore rifles over .270) that make it such a pain.

I wholeheartedly agree!
I think we’re all looking forward to the legislation in the New Year with both hope and fear.
Hope that the current ‘making it up as they go along’ system gets done away with and something concrete and certain is put in it’s place; and fear that we might get sent back to 1972!

I don’t think anyone is too exercised about banning sawn off shotguns and having to provide secure storage for our firearms, but this thing of ‘amendments to deal with issues arising from recent court cases’ is a bit perplexing.

I doubt we will ever see ‘Will Issue’ legislation here (certainly not for the foreseeable future, anyhow), or Concealed Carry or Open Carry permits for handguns, and I don’t know of anybody who’s actually looking for that sort of thing anyway.
But, it would be a shame if the recent trend towards issuing multiple rifle licenses and licensing handguns and bigger calibre rifles was to be stopped or even reversed.

.

Irishglockfan

I

don’t think anyone is too exercised about banning sawn off shotguns and having to provide secure storage for our firearms, but this thing of ‘amendments to deal with issues arising from recent court cases’ is a bit perplexing.

But how do you define a sawn off shotgun?Remember there are shot pistols {AOWs for our US friends}Do you mean a criminally modified weapon,and does that then include somones liscensed gun that was accidently damaged in the barrel and then cut down below 24ins?.Myself I would be inclined to say the min length should be made to18in barrel length for a stocked firearm.Anything below that should then go on a handgun ticket.

Security is sensible.But it has to be set within logical parameters laid down in law.IE it is ludicrious for a super to demand for the storage of a 22 pocket pistol that you must turn your house into Fort Knox with multiple alarm systems.However maybe if you have more than X number of firearms you would need to get a actual gunsafe .This is again how the Germans do it,depending on the amount of guns you have ,you have to get a actual safe appropiate to the amount in possesion.

or Concealed Carry or Open Carry permits for handguns, and I don’t know of anybody who’s actually looking for that sort of thing anyway.

I am as it would be quite a help in my profession to be able to legally carry a firearm.As it stands I cant even carry a flashlite to protect myself or clients.

But, it would be a shame if the recent trend towards issuing multiple rifle licenses and licensing handguns and bigger calibre rifles was to be stopped or even reversed.

This will depend on wether the Min wants to employ feelgood legislation to show he is tough on crime. The ammendments IMO will be the tightning up on handguns and big calibre to proably extreme good reason and then membership of a established and recognised club.How many established and recognised clubs are there and will there be ?

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

But how do you define a sawn off shotgun?Remember there are shot pistols {AOWs for our US friends}

Yes, true, but those are manufactured at that barrel length. A sawn-off, generally, is a full length shotgun that's been, well, sawn-off

Do you mean a criminally modified weapon,and does that then include somones liscensed gun that was accidently damaged in the barrel and then cut down below 24ins?

But if it's a legally owned firearm that's damaged and repaired, no gunsmith is going to repair it so that it becomes illegal, are they?

I think this is going to be one of those issues that is easy to write good legislation for, if people actually get to talk to the appropriate people in the Department. Hopefully (I don't know, since I'm not a shotgun shooter), the ICPSA are already chatting to the right people.

Security is sensible.But it has to be set within logical parameters laid down in law.IE it is ludicrious for a super to demand for the storage of a 22 pocket pistol that you must turn your house into Fort Knox with multiple alarm systems.However maybe if you have more than X number of firearms you would need to get a actual gunsafe .This is again how the Germans do it,depending on the amount of guns you have ,you have to get a actual safe appropiate to the amount in possesion.

True, and it's the definition of "secure storage" that's the real issue. It basicly requires you to have a good relationship with the local garda, and for the various national governing bodies to also have a few quiet words here and there to establish standards. Sadly, I personally don't think that's going to be trivial for pistols at the moment because of the rather confrontational approach that's been taken (which isn't to say that it wasn't wholly unnecessary to take that approach, you understand), but that can be fixed, it'll just take some time.

I am as it would be quite a help in my profession to be able to legally carry a firearm.As it stands I cant even carry a flashlite to protect myself or clients.

Er, what profession, if you don't mind the question? Offhand I can't think of any real need for CCW stuff myself - frankly anything that impedes me in running away isn't good for my health

This will depend on wether the Min wants to employ feelgood legislation to show he is tough on crime. The ammendments IMO will be the tightning up on handguns and big calibre to proably extreme good reason and then membership of a established and recognised club.How many established and recognised clubs are there and will there be ?

Well, how many are there isn't going to give a large number. How many will there be, that's the more interesting one and where developing the sport comes into play
Thing is that in all the noise as the pistols reappeared, there's been mostly talk of 9mm's, .45's, .38's and all the rest - the .22s and the air pistols (though the first back was a .22) have been mostly unnoticed, but I think that over time they may wind up being one of, if not the, largest groups of pistol shooters. If only for price reasons And ranges for .22s and air pistols will be much less difficult to build and get approved - hell, all the air rifle ranges are already able to take air pistols, if the shooters are trained. It's just a different target after all. And it's really that group that I'm personally interested in (though when an appropriate range opens, I'm thinking I might get a .45 to shoot NRA bullseye pistol - I'll be trying before I buy, obviously, but the idea does appeal...)

Irishglockfan

But if it's a legally owned firearm that's damaged and repaired, no gunsmith is going to repair it so that it becomes illegal, are they?

No I was thinking along the lines of a burst barrel shortend down to a min permissible length or things along that line.Anyone can modify a shotgun with five mins and a decent hacksaw.

Er, what profession, if you don't mind the question? Offhand I can't think of any real need for CCW stuff myself - frankly anything that impedes me in running away isn't good for my health

executive protection,private investigation,high valuable item courier for my part.Could think of numerous other"at risk"professins that would justify a CCW if needed

If only for price reasons And ranges for .22s and air pistols will be much less difficult to build and get approved - hell, all the air rifle ranges are already able to take air pistols, if the shooters are trained. It's just a different target after all. And it's really that group that I'm personally interested in (though when an appropriate range opens, I'm thinking I might get a .45 to shoot NRA bullseye pistol - I'll be trying before I buy, obviously, but the idea does appeal...)[

Hmmm well most of the 9mms and 45 can adapt to 22lr as well with different slides ,barrells mags,etc.So maybe this could be an Irish solution to an irish problem?

Rovi

While Irishglockfan arguably has a legitimate requirement for Concealed Carry, I think it will be a VERY long time before we see anyone other than the Guards and military personnel (legally!) carrying sidearms on Irish streets.
Even in a gun-friendly place like this board, I’m not sure many people are wildly enthusiastic about having private security personnel ‘packing heat’.
I know I’m vaguely uncomfortable at the thought of unknown armed people who’s first priority is to their employer and the person/item they are protecting.
I suppose, with sufficient background and security checks on the individuals concerned and the companies employing them, and with very well defined ‘Rules of Engagement’, I could live with it.
I don’t know how it would wash with the general (non-gun enthusiast) public, though.

It’s probably going on at this very moment anyway, so I’ve been going around in blissful ignorance and have been perfectly happy


Anyhow, if the IRA are (supposedly) to be allowed keep some of their small arms for ‘personal protection’, I have no doubt that those of us who have been law-abiding citizens all along will have no problem getting permits for the same purpose

jaycee

It's always amazed me how every time the whole mess over the restrictions on gun types and calibres comes up for debate , the hoary old ploy of "security nessesitated by the situation in the 6 counties " is used as an excuse .

Whatever ones political opinions , It is still legally a different country.
We don't have a "security" problem in the republic.

In the mean time the area that actually has had an on-going history of "unrest"
has far more relaxed and rational firearms regulation.

It dosen't make any kind of sense ..and I have to wonder how distrustful our various elected governments are of it's citizens. It is an insult and affront to our standing as law abiding taxpayers .
I also wonder if the European parliment has any role in promoting "Equality" on this issue.

Anyhow, if the IRA are (supposedly) to be allowed keep some of their small arms for ‘personal protection’, I have no doubt that those of us who have been law-abiding citizens all along will have no problem getting permits for the same purpose

I would imagine that giving that as a reason to get a gun licence to ones local "Super" would result in him shredding the application on the spot...

Irishglockfan

[Even in a gun-friendly place like this board, I’m not sure many people are wildly enthusiastic about having private security personnel ‘packing heat’.
I know I’m vaguely uncomfortable at the thought of unknown armed people who’s first priority is to their employer and the person/item they are protecting.

You must be very uncomfortable then about SB gaurding ministers and other elected muppetts and misc other people of the LEO community then. I know I am ,and that is speaking from a professional perspective regarding their training an equipment.Full auto UZIs in an urban enviroment for one example. :eek:

I suppose, with sufficient background and security checks on the individuals concerned and the companies employing them, and with very well defined ‘Rules of Engagement’, I could live with it

BELIVE it!!!95% of the Irish security personel I know and that includes ex SB and ERU and Irish Rangers,I wouldn't entrust with a water pistol!!!Not due to gun saftey, but due to a very BAD attitude to the job,and learning from others,and an expection of "the old boys" network still to cover their asses even when out of the loop.Which seemingly they never are. :rolleyes:
Speaking tho from inside the private security industry it is a farce here in Ireland and vetting procedures due to data protection and privacy issues are almost never carried out to a thourghness that I would find acceptable to employ anyone with a firearm.Not to mind the insurance premimums to do so here.Hence I do all of my work in this field outside of Ireland.

OTOH there are plenty of people who cannot afford executive protection,but could be justified in a CCW.Bankers,jewellers,bookies,Gun dealers,[belive it or not],politicans[lower ranks] ,journalists[can we say Veronica Guerian and Paul Williams?] On average these are professional fields that on the continent that are justifable for a CCW.AND they have had a LESS terror /crime problem than we have or had.

I don’t know how it would wash with the general (non-gun enthusiast) public, though.

Once they see their charges in the bank statement going down by 7million for not hiring in the gaurds and army for cash escorts,and the crime rate dropping as more thugs realise it isnt too easy anymore to knock off folks,they will go for it.Works fine in CCW States in the USA,despite the anti gun whine of liscenses to kill,etc.Note too that in the UK the law is now swinging back to the householder and citzen to defend themselves in their castles.With any luck we will copy this law over here,now if we can include the car as an extension of one's property,things will be looking up.We can live in hope. :rolleyes:

It’s probably going on at this very moment anyway, so I’ve been going around in blissful ignorance and have been perfectly happy

If it has ,and somone has been offering that kind of security.He is a criminal,or a SB/ERU / moonlighting in off duty time with their sidearm.VERY NAUGHTY!!!!

Anyhow, if the IRA are (supposedly) to be allowed keep some of their small arms for ‘personal protection’, I have no doubt that those of us who have been law-abiding citizens all along will have no problem getting permits for the same purpose

RIGhhhhtttt!!!!! Love to see that one happen!Dont you know the one rule for them ,one rule for the sheeple..er ..tax payers?WE aint important to the appeasers of terrorists in the Dail. :mad:

Rovi

Irishglockfan wrote:

You must be very uncomfortable then about SB gaurding ministers and other elected muppetts and misc other people of the LEO community then. I know I am ,and that is speaking from a professional perspective regarding their training an equipment.Full auto UZIs in an urban enviroment for one example. :eek:

Hmmmmmmmm………………………. I had kinda put the Guards (particularly Special Branch) among the people entitled to carry firepower on the streets, but now that I think of it, I’m afraid you’re probably right
I remember an instance 12 or 14 years ago when I was a leader of a local youth group, we arranged for a guided tour of a (BIG) Garda Station. A detective asked if we’d like to see ‘the guns’. This was greeted with much enthusiasm, me included
We were handed a .38 revolver (S&W, I think), and an Uzi. The detective opened and spun the cylinder of the revolver, dropping the bullets on his desk, and pulled the loaded magazine out if the Uzi, and handed the guns over to a bunch of 10-12 year olds. I don’t know if he counted the revolver bullets as they tumbled across the desk, but if he checked the Uzi to see if a round was chambered, I didn’t see him do it!!! :eek:
I grabbed (carefully!) the Uzi from the 3 or 4 sets of eager hands struggling with it, and racked the action to check for myself (it was empty), and checked the cylinder of the revolver too (also empty).
A minor ‘war’ them ensued as whoever had ‘control’ of one gun did a bunch of dry firing at whoever had the other, with a bit of ‘executing your friends’ thrown in for good measure!!! :eek:
I called an immediate halt to proceedings and handed the detective his guns back. We thanked him very much and continued with the tour (which also included shutting the lads in the cells, and doing burnouts in a squad car around the back yard ).
This incident still gives me the shivers when I think of it

I HOPE that that guy’s gun handling protocols were the exception rather than the rule, but you have me wondering now!

Irishglockfan wrote:

OTOH there are plenty of people who cannot afford executive protection,but could be justified in a CCW.Bankers,jewellers,bookies,Gun dealers,[belive it or not],politicans[lower ranks] ,journalists[can we say Veronica Guerian and Paul Williams?] On average these are professional fields that on the continent that are justifable for a CCW.AND they have had a LESS terror /crime problem than we have or had.

Am I correct in thinking that for years this was ‘standard procedure’ in N.I. for people considered to be ‘at risk’?
I seem to remember various politicians mentioning that they had (or could get if they wanted) personal handguns.

Irishglockfan wrote:

Note too that in the UK the law is now swinging back to the householder and citzen to defend themselves in their castles.With any luck we will copy this law over here,now if we can include the car as an extension of one's property,things will be looking up.We can live in hope. :rolleyes:

So long as the holes are in the front of the bad guy, I like to think you’d probably be okay. :rolleyes:
Wasn’t there a recent case (down Limerick way?) where some guy wasn’t charged (or charges dropped/dismissed) for shooting dead someone breaking into his home, but got done for putting holes in another one running away?

Irishglockfan wrote:

If it has ,and somone has been offering that kind of security.He is a criminal,or a SB/ERU / moonlighting in off duty time with their sidearm.VERY NAUGHTY!!!!

I have no idea if it has happened or not, I was just speculating that it ‘probably’ has

.

gouda

jaycee wrote:

In the mean time the area that actually has had an on-going history of "unrest"
has far more relaxed and rational firearms regulation.

If you mean that people can only get a licence to shoot vermin if the landowner does not already have a firearm or that only one person with a firearm can shoot on that land or that the largest calibre that a shooter can bring on to land is limited to .222, how can that be seen as relaxed or rational laws? Perhaps this is not the situation but this is what a shooting buddy from the North told me. He also said that to shoot on Military ranges i.e. Ballykinlar, that full background checks were normal and if there was involvement in any subversive activities by any of your relatives,even dating back to 1916 and earlier,permission would not be granted to shoot on Military ranges.

jaycee

if there was involvement in any subversive activities by any of your relatives,even dating back to 1916 and earlier,permission would not be granted to shoot on Military ranges.

The difference being that ..here...Even if your entire family ..all the way back to Adam ..were as pure as the driven snow ..it still dosen't protect you from the possible whims and opinions of governments opposed to firearms ownership.

Sparks

gouda wrote:

If you mean that people can only get a licence to shoot vermin if the landowner does not already have a firearm <snip>

I think though gouda, that there were still more freedoms up North than here until recently in that they had pistols and fullbores and so on for target shooting and we didn't. I realise there are those who want firearms for reasons other than target shooting, and I'm not trying to say that they don't count (mainly since there are more of them than of us! ), but to be honest, it's the target shooting bit that I'm interested in so I don't look much at hunting. Which I expect, with the exceptions of the lads that do both, isn't that uncommon an attitude.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Note too that in the UK the law is now swinging back to the householder and citzen to defend themselves in their castles.

That's not actually true though, glock - there's been this portrayal of the situation as being that way in the UK, but it's basicly wrong. The right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force in extreme situations, is not and never has been under threat. But there have been some cases recently that were not reported correctly and that's given the impression that it was. Read this article, it gives a good account of what's happened over there.

Irishglockfan

This incident still gives me the shivers when I think of it

I HOPE that that guy’s gun handling protocols were the exception rather than the rule, but you have me wondering now!

Just reading it gives me the heebejeebes!And these are supposedly the only people entitled to handle large calibre firearms???


Am I correct in thinking that for years this was ‘standard procedure’ in N.I. for people considered to be ‘at risk’?
I seem to remember various politicians mentioning that they had (or could get if they wanted) personal handguns.

Yes it is/was SOP.ironically now members of terrorist groups can now actually legally aquire firearms to protect themselves from each other!Crazy world!


Wasn’t there a recent case (down Limerick way?) where some guy wasn’t charged (or charges dropped/dismissed) for shooting dead someone breaking into his home, but got done for putting holes in another one running away?

Yup,three guys came in looking to give his son a hiding[who is a right little B[/£%IX BTW].He loaded up and gave two both loads,killing one,injuring the other and pepperd no3 in the butt as he was departing the scene.Got 3 years suspended for peppering no3[running away and had his back turned].
SC stated that people who are looking to do harm,might not find that the law is on their side as they might have thought.



I have no idea if it has happened or not, I was just speculating that it ‘probably’ has

It has happened.Have had "offers" myself of guns for hire.They recived a two word answer.Last word is OFF!!!

Sparks

I HOPE that that guy’s gun handling protocols were the exception rather than the rule

You and all of us!

Yup,three guys came in <snip > Got 3 years suspended for peppering no3[running away and had his back turned.
SC stated that people who are looking to do harm,might not find that the law is on their side as they might have thought.

That's a pretty instructive example - once the attacker turns and flees, in the eyes of the law no further action is warranted by the victim. Basicly, the idea is that in extremis, you're allowed to defend yourself - not go after someone. Same as in the UK, basicly. But the idea is that you should be trying to preserve your own life and safety rather than (say) property or whatever. (Note, that's not a legal opinion - you might have guessed from the lack of a fifty-page report on the subject )

Irishglockfan

The right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, up to and including lethal force in extreme situations, is not and never has been under threat. But there have been some cases recently that were not reported correctly

It is the rub what is reasonable force?As it stands here you shoot somone here and they are armed with a knife,you could find yourself in the dock as it could be judged that using a gun against a knife is "excessive" force.Here you must use force "appropiate"to the threat.EG fist against fists,knife against knife,etc. there was a case described in the ST yesterday where a couple after grappling with a burglar,managed to throw him out their bedroom window.the burglar landed on a porch roof and rolled off unhurt.but they were told if he had fallen directly onto the ground and injured himself they would have been done for excessive force and injury.The above articles you mentioned are of the excessive force variety. On the Martin and the Limerick case,I would argue that in the heat of the moment,an untrained professional can possibly over react and still fire at a fleeing target.Even the turned back arguement has been proven shakey.In the US it was proven in one case that a person pretending to flee had actually been reloading a handgun or had been trying to draw it from their belt and had attempted to turn to fire on the house holder.All in all these cases must be judged on their occurances and merit.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

It is the rub what is reasonable force?

That which is necessary to preserve your life or that of another person's - no more. It's a pretty easy standard to be honest, if all you're honestly trying to do is to defend yourself or your family.

It's a lot more common-sense than you might think!

As it stands here you shoot somone here and they are armed with a knife,you could find yourself in the dock as it could be judged that using a gun against a knife is "excessive" force.Here you must use force "appropiate"to the threat.EG fist against fists,knife against knife,etc. there was a case described in the ST yesterday where a couple after grappling with a burglar,managed to throw him out their bedroom window.the burglar landed on a porch roof and rolled off unhurt.but they were told if he had fallen directly onto the ground and injured himself they would have been done for excessive force and injury.

I'll trust the court transcripts first - I'm still stinging from the ST's article on Frank Brophy's court case, the one that said we'd soon be up to our tonsils in "assault pistols"...

The above articles you mentioned are of the excessive force variety. On the Martin and the Limerick case,I would argue that in the heat of the moment,an untrained professional can possibly over react and still fire at a fleeing target.

That's not what the evidence in Martin's case showed to have happened though.

Even the turned back arguement has been proven shakey.In the US it was proven in one case that a person pretending to flee had actually been reloading a handgun or had been trying to draw it from their belt and had attempted to turn to fire on the house holder.All in all these cases must be judged on their occurances and merit.

Indeed, and that's what happens - but at the end of the day, it's down to a non-trivial philisophical point about the authority of the judicary. If you defend yourself, that's your right - but if you take it on yourself to punish someone for a crime like burgulary or petty theft, you're declaring yourself to be a higher authority than the judiciary. So obviously, they're not going to think of that in any high regard.

Irishglockfan

]That which is necessary to preserve your life or that of another person's - no more. It's a pretty easy standard to be honest, if all you're honestly trying to do is to defend yourself or your family.

Again circumstances,if you saw somone flee the scene of a crime and they had a firearm and they drop behind a barricade and return fire,or prepare to do so.how do you stand then?must you retreat,or can you return fire again,as you are still under threat but you know if you turn your back to run for cover you may be shot?
Or your perp flees ,stops and turns,and you "see" what you belive to be a "gun" and you fire as you now belive he is going to return deadly force,shooting him in the side or back.The "gun" turns out to be a torch or harmless object. How do you stand here?All this evidence must be judged on the occuring situation and circumstance.

In Martins case the forensic evidence suggested a back shot.BUT there are certain factors that have to be considerd.
1] did Martin know that Barras was unarmed?[2] did he shoot to kill?[3] did he know how many perps there were in the house and their armed status?

No matter what happend,i think Martin would have gone down on a couple of things.[1]possesion of an unliscensed firearm.[2]deadly force misuse thereof
Personally i think he also fitted the "lone gunnut survivalist" mold that the media like to portray some people who are outside the bounds of precived"normalacy" Martin fitted there in[a] reclusive outspoken in opinions,which he said he would shoot anyone who broke into his place again.
[c] little or no strong pouplarity or political pull.[d] a "racially" precived killing of the ethnic gypsy?? community [e] Somone to make a good example to in these PC times to the other sheeple who might get ideas about self defence.

I'll trust the court transcripts first - I'm still stinging from the ST's article on Frank Brophy's court case, the one that said we'd soon be up to our tonsils in "assault pistols"...

Errrrr It was in the SUNDAY TIMES[uK] not That other "newspaper"

Indeed, and that's what happens - but at the end of the day, it's down to a non-trivial philisophical point about the authority of the judicary. If you defend yourself, that's your right - but if you take it on yourself to punish someone for a crime like burgulary or petty theft,

Was talking about this in a life or death situation.Depends where you end up in however .Switzerland in some cantons gives you the right of armed hot pursuit.Where you can keep on shooting as the perp flees facing you or back to you from your property onto a public road.Wether they intended to commit burgalary or actual bodily harm.why so extreme?you dont know what the perp has or what plans or what arms they might have secreted on or about themselves.So therefore the law there allows you to put yourself at no risk.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Yes, true, but those are manufactured at that barrel length. A sawn-off, generally, is a full length shotgun that's been, well, sawn-off

How about one of these-
http://www.serbu.com/shorty.htm

A 6.5 inch barreled 12 gauge shotgun!!! :eek:

Erm.......... it's for super short range clay pigeon shooting, Guard.
.

Irishglockfan

Fired a 12in "Miami Vice" pump shot pistol once!
Loverly and concealable,but the muzzle blast is somthing else.18 ins tolerable.12ins very bad.6ins..... Hey! where are my eyebrows???Unless the barrel have been rechoked you have a sawn off shotgun that will just spray and not really hit anything ,unless you are within interior phone booth range.Plus rapid fire is a very sore thing on the wrists with one of these beasties.You really need very good pistol grips,those thin ar15 style rear pistol grip is gonna hurt,and the front grip yoke looks very "ungrippable".
My own one in the USA hadan 18in barrel and fnt & rear "Thompson SMG "style grips by Adventurers Outpost.I put them on after one firing session of the thin supplied pistol grip had ripped my web between thumb and forefinger,and the slide hand finger tips were raw from contacting the sharp underside of the heat shield and slide bars.After that it was a real "blast" to shoot.

Maybe I am getting auld but I would go the 20GA as being alot more controllable in that barrel length.