Parliamentary Questions

Grizzly 45

Sorry,I miss the poin here Sparks...It tells us nothing new ans the statement doesnt even address the question posed by Dep Carey??

Sparks

Well, it doesn't tell us anything we hadn't guessed here, but it does confirm how the PTB regard the Supreme Court judgements; which is different from the analysis put forward by the NARGC.

It wasn't me!

It does address the questions, and Sparks is right. Those last two sentences are pretty striking in their significance!

Grizzly 45

Sorry IWM unless I am going stupid,I do not see any mention in this about the on going sucessful court outcomes in "Parrott" Ahernes statement and the costs being carried by the Irish taxpayer??Perhaps you might underline or quote that revelant part for me??

PTB????

It wasn't me!

He describes the legislative process under which the appeals are taking place. He doesn't deal with the effect on the resources of the judiciary, of course, but that's about it.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sorry IWM unless I am going stupid,I do not see any mention in this about the on going sucessful court outcomes in "Parrott" Ahernes statement and the costs being carried by the Irish taxpayer??Perhaps you might underline or quote that revelant part for me??

These bits:

It also fully endorsed the power of the Superintendent to impose conditions on licences.

This wasn't completely clear, though we'd accepted it on here. Some folks hadn't, and thought we were incorrect, and one of the cases that went to the Supreme Court was predicated on that point.

Of particular interest was that the Supreme Court held, that in assessing ’good reason’, that the “reason and the weapon were inseparable”, and that “ the Superintendent had power to refuse the firearms certificate in the case for the reason given, namely that he did not believe the firearm in question was a suitable weapon for target practice”.

This is critical because

1. it overrules the High Court ruling that said the applicant had to be considered alone, that the nature of the firearm wasn't grounds for refusal if the applicant was suitable; and
2. that the Superintendent believing the firearm was unsuitable was sufficient reason to refuse.

The point in (b) being that it's not an objective test, it's purely subjective, and it's the Super's point of view that counts. ie. If your super feels that WA1500 isn't a sport, then he can refuse your licence based on that belief.

Which is why I say it's a bit of an important and damaging point in that judgement...

PTB????

Powers That Be. ie, a generic term for whichever of the Minister, the Department, the Commissioner, the Chief Superintendent and the Superintendent is appropriate in the context.

Grizzly 45

It wasn't me! wrote: »

He describes the legislative process under which the appeals are taking place

Which we all know about,and was not being asked about

.

He doesn't deal with the effect on the resources of the judiciary, of course, but that's about it

Which was being asked about and not answerd as usual.So IOW he never answerd the question.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it doesn't tell us anything we hadn't guessed here, but it does confirm how the PTB regard the Supreme Court judgements; which is different from the analysis put forward by the NARGC.

Thats a bit like saying a banana sees a banana skin as something to wear and a monkey sees it as something to peel off.

It is the usual rabbitting off of a pre-wrtten statement.

He said one thing and one thing only -

It is not my problem any more. talk to the hand

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Thats a bit like saying a banana sees a banana skin as something to wear and a monkey sees it as something to peel off.
It is the usual rabbitting off of a pre-wrtten statement.

Except that in this specific case, what role the banana skin plays is determined in the courts, and when the Minister takes a specific line on things, the courts do tend to listen; as you can see from the High Court transcripts of the recent Supreme Court appeals. If the Minister has a specific policy on something, the High Court took the line that they didn't have the role of vetoing a sitting Minister.

Besides which, it openly confirms the line that the PTB are taking. Which hasn't happened before now. And it openly contradicts the NARGC analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings, which is important to note if you're taking a court case at the moment.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Besides which, it openly confirms the line that the PTB are taking. Which hasn't happened before now. And it openly contradicts the NARGC analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings, which is important to note if you're taking a court case at the moment.

True - but I don't believe a word the man says since I saw him openly lying before the Dail when I know he was aware of the truth and threatening other members of the house and besmirching the good name of people in shooting all in the interests of driving through his agenda by hook or by Crook - and that is Crook with a capitall C.

Now if he had agreed with anyone elses analysis of the SC cases I'd be worried but this is just peanut gallery stuff so I take no heed. If the Court had overturned all three cases he would be saying the courts have too much power and need to have some of it taken away from them.

Smoke & Mirrors.

B'Man

Sparks

29 September 2010

Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Question 1472: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the recent changes to gun licensing for the purposes of game hunting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32466/10]

John Gormley (Minister, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Dublin South East, Green Party)
The Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2010 includes provisions allowing all holders of valid firearm certificates issued for shotguns between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2012 to be deemed to be the holders of a hunting licence under the Wildlife Acts for the purposes of hunting game bird and hare species. This provision was introduced to address an issue which arose following the introduction of a new computerised firearm licensing system by An Garda Siochana.

The Wildlife Acts require a hunter to have a licence to hunt certain birds (such as wildfowl) and hares. The Acts made provision that this would be obtained as an endorsement on the hunter’s Firearm Certificate. Both the hunting licence and the Firearm Certificate were issued by An Garda Síochána in the form of a shotgun licence with the appropriate endorsement for hunting.

New, computerised procedures introduced in 2009 for issuing 3-year Firearms Certificates omitted the facility for issuing the endorsement as a Wildlife Hunting licence. I understand that by the time the oversight was identified, it was not practicable to recall the new Firearms Certificates issued or to change the licensing process that was in train. Accordingly, provisions were included in the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2010 to allow a hunter who is in possession of a new Firearms Certificate to shoot game birds and hare species during the Open Seasons. These provisions will lapse on 31 July 2012, allowing the necessary changes to be made to the Garda computerised system in the intervening period.

Sparks

7 October 2010

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Question 13: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the action he has taken to prevent the importation of arms such as the Ingram submachine gun; the extent if any to which steps have been taken to prevent any recurrences; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35403/10]

Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Louth, Fianna Fail)
In setting the policing priorities for An Garda Síochána in 2010, I have asked the Commissioner to continue the focus of the force on serious crime, in particular organised crime. This priority is reflected in the Garda Policing Plan for this year, which sets out a commitment to proactively target groups and individuals engaged in organised crime. To this end, An Garda Síochána is conducting intelligence-led operations focusing on organised crime groups in the greater Dublin area and in other cities. As a result of these operations, a number of individuals are before the courts charged with serious offences concerning the sale and supply of arms. There operations include Operation Anvil. Since its commencement, over 1,400 firearms have been recovered in the Dublin Metropolitan Region and 1,800 outside it.

An Garda Síochána is utilising all available legislation in respect of tackling organised crime. The force will continue to develop and implement strategies to dismantle and disrupt criminal networks, utilising analytical and intelligence methods to facilitate targeted operations which prevent such crimes by early intervention.

An Garda Síochána is committed to tackling the illegal importation of firearms. Inter-agency co-operation is essential to this, and the Garda Organised Crime Unit maintains liaison with the PSNI and the UK Serious and Organised Crime Agency. An Garda Síochána also has liaison officers based in the UK, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal and officers seconded to Europol and Interpol. There is also strong inter-agency co-operation with the Revenue Commissioners and the Naval Service. As a result of this co-operation, Irish and international figures are being successfully targeted.

There are very severe penalties for firearms offences in place. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 introduced a wide range of provisions to combat gun crime. It introduced mandatory minimum sentences of five or ten years for certain firearms offences, including possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances, possession of a firearm with criminal intent, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, possession of a firearm while hijacking a vehicle, use of a firearm to resist arrest and a new offence of altering a firearm.

Ingrams have nothing to do with hunting or target shooting, but the question of importation does, hence this PQ going into the thread...

Sparks

12 October 2010

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Question 374: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of handguns currently licensed here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36522/10]

Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Louth, Fianna Fail)

I have requested from the Garda authorities the information sought and I will write to the Deputy when it is available.

Email sent to Deputy Creighton asking for a copy of that information when it's sent to her; I'll post it here if it arrives.

Bananaman

Do we know why she was asking?

B'Man

Sparks

Nope. Probably because she was asked to ask.

Sparks

Deputy Creighton has responded and promised to pass on the information when she receives it, and has also tabled a second PQ asking for the numbers of firearms licenced since the three-year licence came in, broken down into rifles, shotguns, handguns and others.

pedroeibar1

Interesting and potentially scary.

All the three-year licenses technically are 'new', so it is easy to imagine the redtops and gombeen politicians baying about 'Minister grants XX thousand NEW gun licenses for deadly weapons!'
I would hope that the guys in the DoJLR who are phrasing the reply will not land their Minister in it!
P.

Sparks

Well, yes, but it's an important piece of baseline information to have Pedro. From what estimates I've heard, the number of licences should be somewhere in the 200-210,000 range, down by around 10%; most of the reduction coming not from contentious cases involving courts, but from farmers deciding that €6 per annum was okay for the 80-year-old single-barrel baikal, but €80 this year (even for a 3-year licence) was too much of a cash flow hit and a 9-page form too much of a pita to bother with.

Getting the actual numbers should give us a better idea of where we are.

Sparks

Answer's in:

Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Question 202: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if he will respond to this Deputy’s recent question regarding the number of handguns licensed here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42261/10]

Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Louth, Fianna Fail):
I can now inform the Deputy that to date (valid to 11th October 2010), there have been 998 Firearm Certificates issued under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009 in respect of handguns, 599 of which are classified as non-restricted handguns, with 389 classified as restricted handguns.

While the Act did provide in certain circumstances for the issuing of licenses for restricted handguns which were in the possession of persons prior to the 19th of November 2008, no licenses can be issued in respect of new restricted handguns after that date.

So about twice as many air and .22 pistols as centerfire pistols have been issued, for a total of around a thousand between all three groups.

tonysopprano

What about the other 10? (599+389=988)

Sparks

Math like that does rather explain a lot of our economic issues...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Answer's in:
So about twice as many air and .22 pistols as centerfire pistols have been issued

I would have assumed that that was always roughly the case - even before the epoch - from my own observations while attending club and national competitions.

B'Man

PS: There are also restricted .22 pistols, not sure if there is such a thing as a restricted air pistol (unless it was made by a certain famous polymer manufacturer of course and came in any colour you wanted as long as it was .....)

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I would have assumed that that was always roughly the case

So would I, but the point of asking the question was to get confirmed baseline data. It's still incomplete though, given the number of cases before the courts, but it should be accurate to within a hundred or so licences.

from my own observations while attending club and national competitions.

Not a reliable source of information though B'man, because before the new rules, it wasn't mandatory to be in a target shooting club to own a pistol (though it was rare) and it was never and still isn't mandatory to take part in competitions to own a pistol (most people, going by DURC and UCD's statistics, just like target shooting without entering competitions, even at club level).

PS: There are also restricted .22 pistols, not sure if there is such a thing as a restricted air pistol (unless it was made by a certain famous polymer manufacturer of course and came in any colour you wanted as long as it was .....)

There are lots of restricted air pistols - any air pistol that isn't .177 calibre is restricted. So lots of the basic plinking type you'd find in the UK or EU or US would be restricted and unlicencable here.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

There are lots of restricted air pistols - any air pistol that isn't .177 calibre is restricted. So lots of the basic plinking type you'd find in the UK or EU or US would be restricted and unlicencable here.

Not true - if you held license, for what is now a restricted firearm, before the epoch - you could license them - same as any other type of pistol.

B'Man

Sparks

They are unlicencable here if you bring them in today though B'man. It's the same set of rules as with centerfire pistols.

Bananaman

Fair nuf.

I though the question was:

this Deputy’s recent question regarding the number of handguns licensed here

In which case a number of restricted handguns - which are licensed here - will most likely contain a number of of restricted centrefire pistols, a number of restricted rimfire pistols and a number of restricted air pistols - which if going by the trends you highlighted earlier would be approx 1/3 centrefire and 2/3 rimfire or air.

B'Man

Sparks

I think the number of restricted pistols here isn't likely to contain very many .22 or air pistols though B'man; simply because the main users of air pistols in Ireland are the Pony Club, the MPAI and the NTSA, and they all use the same kind of .177 ISSF pistols which aren't restricted; and there aren't a huge number of .22 pistols that can't go from restricted to unrestricted just by plugging chambers or limiting magazine capacity. Only the very small .22 pistols would be stuck that way, and most people seemed to be going for larger models.

It's more likely (IMHO) that the restricted pistols listed are overwhelmingly centerfire pistols.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I
It's more likely (IMHO) that the restricted pistols listed are overwhelmingly centerfire pistols.

May be so - but that'll be up to the DOJ&LR, Gardai or CSO to say.

Although I do not see the point bar trying to let on there are far more unrestricted handguns - which would obviously mean they would have to be 'taken off the street'

I personally would not have hobbled a 22 handgun to make it unrestricted - no need - especially a revolver - disgraceful thing to be required to do.

But then I see 'restricted' as no big deal - it's like saying it's ugly - all in the eye of the beholder.

It's just a discriminatory label - It certainly does not make it less dangerous, more safe, or more accurate.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Although I do not see the point bar trying to let on there are far more unrestricted handguns - which would obviously mean they would have to be 'taken off the street'

(a) the point of asking the question was well explained above - it's important baseline data to know, otherwise you're operating in the dark; and
(b) it's not obvious nor is it anything but a rather paranoid stretch to say that looking for the numbers is a prelude to a push to get them off the street. Especially when it was shooters who asked the question in the first place.

I personally would not have hobbled a 22 handgun to make it unrestricted - no need - especially a revolver - disgraceful thing to be required to do.

It's definitely a daft thing, but it's the law and we're rather stuck with it for now.

But then I see 'restricted' as no big deal - it's like saying it's ugly - all in the eye of the beholder.

It's not a big deal, it just means you apply for your licence slightly differently and you might have to have a higher secure storage level (but most people's existing houses would meet the initial requirements for security anyway if they just bought a gun safe).

It's just a discriminatory label - It certainly does not make it less dangerous, more safe, or more accurate.

It's definitely a discriminatory label. Just not the way you might think. It discriminates between two different legal classes of firearm (and yes, I know, in our terms the distinction is silly and meaningless and so forth - but then the 30kph speed limit in Dublin is silly too, but you'll still be done for speeding if you break it. You can't ignore a law because you think it's silly). And the consequences for being on one side of the line or the other are legal too - different people to apply for a licence to, different secure storage requirements and so on.

Sparks

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Question 207: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform if a person (details supplied) in County Limerick who is acknowledged as an official FÁS pistol training instructor will have their .9mm pistol licence renewed [43708/10]

Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Louth, Fianna Fail):
The licensing of firearms is an operational matter for An Garda Síochána. Each application is judged on its own merits and the decision on whether, or not, to grant a firearm certificate rests solely with the issuing person. The decision of the issuing person cannot be fettered in any way and I have no role in the matter.

I'd love to know when FAS started officially designating firearms instructors, given that I know of only one course that was to be officially tied to the FETAC/HETAC rating system and that course was for club instructors and it's paperwork is currently in limbo.