Parliamentary Questions

solarwinds

Where is the evidence that dealers are being broken into regularly. I don't when is the last time i heard of a dealer being robbed. All the dealers i use have more than adequate safe doors most ex bank vault doors. So where is the evidence this is an ongoing issue.
Most thieves are opportunistic and are not going to spend a couple of hours at night trying to get through a door and i have never heard of a dealer being hauled out of bed to open up the gun room at 4 in the morning.
Typical of ireland were you can bring in laws that affect everyone with no stats to justify it all based on "a good idea" by one or two individuals. Label it as public safety and off you go.
Where was the consiltation on this a few people do not represent an industry.
And now we have a guy who seems to be so stubborn as to not even be willing to talk about possible ammendments let alone shelve it who keeps trotting out the same nonsense to any question asked.
This has to be the best country i know of that tries to do its best at all times to close small businesses.

Sparks

i have never heard of a dealer being hauled out of bed to open up the gun room at 4 in the morning.

While it has happened, it's definitely abnormal enough to make all the papers.
I think in thirty years I've heard of three or four cases, one of which didn't happen (it was planned, the gardai prevented it).

gunny123

When you see in the papers what the crim's are carrying, its plain they are not really interested in shotguns and rifles, and afaik, dealers are still not permitted to bring in pistols to have in stock. They have to be ordered in for each individual.

Sparks

I'd also argue that the change is not proportional to the risk because of the cost involved; as well as some seriously loose wording in the SI that requires far more security than seems warranted (and I'm not sure how mandatory night vision CCTV is going to prevent a robbery - it might help catch the thieves later on but that's cold comfort to the RFD who was robbed...)

Sparks

Ah, ****e, what idiot dragged that gobdaw into this? That eejit is not a friend to any of us.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)

359. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if he will address a matter (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12783/18]

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
I wish to advise the Deputy that Statutory Instrument 646 of 2017, entitled Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017, was signed into law by me last month and circulated to firearms dealers.

These Regulations give effect to minimum standards for the safe and secure storage of firearms and ammunition in the premises of firearms dealers. They recognise that firearms dealers are entitled to be in possession of large quantities of firearms but require them to conduct business from a premises that has been constructed to a high standard. The Regulations also recognise the different categories of firearms dealers and scales the requirements depending on the quantities of ammunition and firearms being stored.

This Statutory Instrument derives from the powers conferred under Sections 9(10) and (11) of the Firearms Act 1925, which were inserted by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 9(10) provides “The Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations specify minimum standards to be complied with in relation to premises in which a firearms dealer carries on a business or proposes to do so”.

Section 9(11) provides “The minimum standards shall be determined by reference to
(a) the security of the premises
(b) their safety, and
(c) their standard of construction,
and having regard to their use for, as the case may be, the manufacture, repair, testing, proving or sale of firearms or ammunition”.

These provisions were passed by the Oireachtas on 5 July 2006 and signed into law by the President on 16 July 2006 and commenced on 1 January 2008.

The Regulations were developed following consultation with a sub-group of the Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) consisting of registered firearms dealers. It was agreed by the FCP when this sub group was being established that the firearms dealers on the Panel at the time should sit on the sub-group for the purpose of examining this particular issue.

The FCP is a consultative group and it was never the intention that the legislation would be dependent on the FCP’s support. I should add that I am currently reviewing the future structure and membership of the FCP and submissions have been invited from the relevant interest groups.

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána has endorsed the security measures contained in this Regulation. Similar security measures have been applied successfully elsewhere, e.g. in banks, pharmacies and the jewellery sector.

In order to minimise the financial impact, a lead-in time of twelve months (to 1 February 2019) for compliance has been included in the Regulation in order to permit dealers sufficient time to comply with the legislation.

I wish to advise the Deputy that I have no plans to amend these regulations which have been introduced as a public safety measure.

Of note just to see the budget to give an idea of how much this sort of thing costs so I just copied the relevant line of the table:

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
295. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the amount spent by his Department on third party public relations advice, communications advice, online advertising and public awareness campaigns from January 2017 to date in 2018, by year, month and company engaged in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11771/18]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
The following table details relevant expenditure in my Department since January 2017. The work contracted has allowed valuable public attention to be drawn to important issues such as human trafficking and domestic violence:

DATE EXPENDITURE SERVICE COMPANY CONTRACTED
01/03/2017 €3,245.62 Realistic Imitation Firearms Public Consultation on legislative proposals Mediavest

Sparks

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
175. To ask the Tiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the person or body his Department consulted with during the preparation of SI No. 646 of 2017 Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14366/18]

176. To ask the Tiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if his Department considered the risks associated with time lock mechanisms before including such mechanisms as a requirement for strong rooms in the context of SI No. 646 of 2017 Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14367/18]

177. To ask the Tiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if alternatives to time lock mechanisms for strong rooms were considered, such as distress codes in alarm systems, in the context of SI No. 646 of 2017 Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017; if so, the reason these alternatives were discounted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14368/18]

178. To ask the Tiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if his Department considered the impact of the requirements contained in SI No. 646 of 2017 Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017 on small businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14369/18]

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 175 to 178, inclusive, together.

I wish to advise the Deputy that Statutory Instrument 646 of 2017, entitled Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017, was signed into law by me and circulated to firearms dealers.

These Regulations give effect to minimum standards for the safe and secure storage of firearms and ammunition in the premises of firearms dealers. They recognise that firearms dealers are entitled to be in possession of large quantities of firearms but require them to conduct business from a premises that has been constructed to a high standard. The Regulations also recognise the different categories of firearms dealers and scales the requirements depending on the quantities of ammunition and firearms being stored. For example, a time lock requirement does not apply to those dealers who deal only in small quantities of ammunition.

This Statutory Instrument derives from the powers conferred under Sections 9(10) and (11) of the Firearms Act 1925, which were inserted by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 9(10) provides “The Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations specify minimum standards to be complied with in relation to premises in which a firearms dealer carries on a business or proposes to do so”.

Section 9(11) provides “The minimum standards shall be determined by reference to
(a) the security of the premises
(b) their safety, and
(c) their standard of construction,

and having regard to their use for, as the case may be, the manufacture, repair, testing, proving or sale of firearms or ammunition”.

These provisions were passed by the Oireachtas on 5 July 2006 and signed into law by the President on 16 July 2006 and commenced on 1 January 2008.

The Regulations were developed following consultation with a sub-group of the Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) consisting of registered firearms dealers. It was agreed by the FCP when this sub group was being established that the firearms dealers on the Panel at the time should sit on the sub-group for the purpose of examining this particular issue. Firearms dealers’ premises were visited in fourteen counties prior to and during the drafting of this legislation. The dealers who sat on the sub-group are knowledgeable of the security that they and their colleagues utilise. Additionally, An Garda Sh who were represented on the group have extensive experience with regard to security measures available in the industry and particularly in firearms dealers’ premises.

Concerns have been raised by some firearms dealers, particularly in relation to the time lock requirement. The inclusion of the requirement for time locks was originally suggested by the sub-group to act as a significant deterrent and discouragement to criminal attack. Some dealers have claimed that their monitored alarm system serves the same purpose as a time-lock. This is not correct. The existing monitored alarm system will alert if the strong room is opened but it will not prevent the door from being opened. The time-lock mechanism will prevent the door from being opened until a time pre-determined by the firearms dealer. This measure is to make a ‘Tiger Kidnapping’ situation less likely to occur whereby a dealer could be forced to open the strong room under duress. The time-lock will lock the door at a time decided by the dealer (e.g. at the end of the business day) and cannot be opened until a pre-determined time (e.g. the commencement of the next business day.) It is also understood that some dealers view is that time locks would prevent access in the event of a fire and could lead to dealers being held kidnapped for a longer period while waiting for time locks to open. It is likely that criminals would not risk waiting for the deactivation of time locks when there are risks that other security measures included in the premises could be activated e.g. duress panic buttons.

The Commissioner of An Garda Shiochana has strongly endorsed the security measures contained in this Regulation and has advised that the inclusion of a requirement for a time-lock on the strong room door will deter criminal activity and require the use of greater resources by any person attempting to access firearms or ammunition illegally. Similar security measures have been applied successfully elsewhere, e.g. in banks, pharmacies and the jewellery sector.

In order to minimise the financial impact, a lead-in time of twelve months (to 1 February 2019) for compliance has been included in the Regulation in order to permit dealers sufficient time to comply with the legislation.

I wish to advise the Deputy that I have no plans to amend these regulations which have been introduced as a public safety measure.

yubabill1

Sooooooooooo......D Stanton brings in a RFD SI recommended by the Sports Coalition. Sports coalition say they represent RFD's. RFD's getting TD's to ask PQ's about where did this regulation come from? D Stanton asks Sports Coalition how many RFD's do you represent? (Hint: The number is larger than one and smaller than three).

cavan shooter

The Sports Coalition did this to remove smaller dealers from the pitch ensuring only their select few are left.

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

The Sports Coalition did this to remove smaller dealers from the pitch ensuring only their select few are left.

Dunno about you, but i prefer dealing with smaller set-ups.

cavan shooter

gunny123 wrote: »

cavan shooter wrote: »

The Sports Coalition did this to remove smaller dealers from the pitch ensuring only their select few are left.

Dunno about you, but i prefer dealing with smaller set-ups.

Smaller dealers are the salt of the earth but like many small businesses they are being squeezed out by the larger lads. It's disgraceful to think that the Sports Coalition of vested interests are blatantly targeting these lads. Evidenced by the fact there firearms dealers group has if I'm correct in saying has 2 members.

ayagerard

cavan shooter wrote: »

Smaller dealers are the salt of the earth but like many small businesses they are being squeezed out by the larger lads. It's disgraceful to think that the Sports Coalition of vested interests are blatantly targeting these lads. Evidenced by the fact there firearms dealers group has if I'm correct in saying has 2 members.

and what is worse they cant see what they are doing wrong or why they have no friends ,the few loyal friends they have will go down with them , they haven't figured out yet they are on the titanic , so the best thing is to tel them they are write and saw one last good bye :cool:

Sparks

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
201. To ask the Tiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the reason there was no consultation with a representative organisation (details supplied) prior to the signing of a statutory instrument; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14760/18]

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I wish to advise the Deputy that Statutory Instrument 646 of 2017, entitled Firearms (Storage of Firearms and Ammunition by Firearms Dealers) Regulations 2017, was signed into law by me and circulated to firearms dealers.

These Regulations give effect to minimum standards for the safe and secure storage of firearms and ammunition in the premises of firearms dealers. They recognise that firearms dealers are entitled to be in possession of large quantities of firearms but require them to conduct business from a premises that has been constructed to a high standard. The Regulations also recognise the different categories of firearms dealers and scales the requirements depending on the quantities of ammunition and firearms being stored. For example, a time lock requirement does not apply to those dealers who deal only in small quantities of ammunition.

This Statutory Instrument derives from the powers conferred under Sections 9(10) and (11) of the Firearms Act 1925, which were inserted by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 9(10) provides “The Minister, after consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations specify minimum standards to be complied with in relation to premises in which a firearms dealer carries on a business or proposes to do so”.

Section 9(11) provides “The minimum standards shall be determined by reference to
(a) the security of the premises
(b) their safety, and
(c) their standard of construction,

and having regard to their use for, as the case may be, the manufacture, repair, testing, proving or sale of firearms or ammunition”.

These provisions were passed by the Oireachtas on 5 July 2006 and signed into law by the President on 16 July 2006 and commenced on 1 January 2008.

The Regulations were developed following consultation with a sub-group of the Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) consisting of registered firearms dealers. It was agreed by the FCP when this sub group was being established that the firearms dealers on the Panel at the time should sit on the sub-group for the purpose of examining this particular issue. Firearms dealers’ premises were visited in fourteen counties prior to and during the drafting of this legislation. The dealers who sat on the sub-group are knowledgeable of the security that they and their colleagues utilise. Additionally, An Garda Sioch who were represented on the group have extensive experience with regard to security measures available in the industry and particularly in firearms dealers’ premises.

The FCP is a consultative group and it was never the intention that the legislation would be dependent on the FCP’s support. I should add that I am currently reviewing the future structure and membership of the FCP and submissions have been invited from the relevant interest groups.

The Commissioner of An Garda Sh has endorsed the security measures contained in this Regulation and has advised that the inclusion of a requirement for a time-lock on the strong room door will deter criminal activity and require the use of greater resources by any person attempting to access firearms or ammunition illegally. Similar security measures have been applied successfully elsewhere, e.g. in banks, pharmacies and the jewellery sector.

In order to minimise the financial impact, a lead-in time of twelve months (to 1 February 2019) for compliance has been included in the Regulation in order to permit dealers sufficient time to comply with the legislation.

I wish to advise the Deputy that I have no plans to amend these regulations which have been introduced as a public safety measure.

BattleCorp

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The dealers who sat on the sub-group are knowledgeable of the security that they and their colleagues utilise.

:rolleyes:

I'd have stuck in a smiley emoji if only it wasn't so serious. :mad:

Nekarsulm

The difference is, I'm sure Banks, Pharmacies and Jewellers didn't get a letter in the post out of the blue telling them that it was now the law that they have timelocks on their premises.

gunny123

Who were the dealers on this sub-committee ? Just want to know so i can boycott them.

solarwinds

So basically these dealers went in and said here lads our security arrangements are sh1te and the licenses you granted us were based on inadequate security in our opinion. So lets increase it to what we think it should be without any consultation with any security experts to advise us.
Who does that who goes in and shoots themselves in the foot like that. Never have i seen such incompetence and self destruction.

gunny123

solarwinds wrote: »

Never have i seen such incompetence and self destruction.

You forgot treachery.

Cass

He [Stanton] skirts the issue of actually naming them. In all the responses he keeps to the same line about "a sub committee of the FCP" without actually saying it was two dealers from all the RFDs in the country.

Not surprising, either that he keeps avoiding the question or avoiding naming them, as the SI gives him what he wants and makes the AGS's life easier so why include more people to possibly upset current outcome.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

He [Stanton] skirts the issue of actually naming them. In all the responses he keeps to the same line about "a sub committee of the FCP" without actually saying it was two dealers from all the RFDs in the country.

Not surprising, either that he keeps avoiding the question or avoiding naming them, as the SI gives him what he wants and makes the AGS's life easier so why include more people to possibly upset current outcome.

Is it not public information ? Can it be found out under the freedom of information act ?

270WIN

These 2 dealers whoever they are should be boycotted by every shooting man/woman in the country, Close the clowns down.

grassroot1

Are the minutes of the FCP sub commitee available?
We all can remember a time when there might be only one or two RFD available to us. They had grand prix size 6 shot and .22 bullets and that was your choice, we will soon be back to this.
My local RFD is busiest between 5pm and 9pm in the evenings how will a time lock work for him?

Nekarsulm

grassroot1 wrote: »

My local RFD is busiest between 5pm and 9pm in the evenings how will a time lock work for him?

He will just set the time lock to operate between 10pm and 9am, or whatever suits.
All time locks will achieve, is to make the crime take place during regular opening hours ........

ayagerard

Cass wrote: »

He [Stanton] skirts the issue of actually naming them. In all the responses he keeps to the same line about "a sub committee of the FCP" without actually saying it was two dealers from all the RFDs in the country.

Not surprising, either that he keeps avoiding the question or avoiding naming them, as the SI gives him what he wants and makes the AGS's life easier so why include more people to possibly upset current outcome.

in the interests of transparency he (the minister ) should name the dealers on the panel when asked a direct question as to who they are , if they cant be named they should not be there in the first place claiming to represent the majority and their input bined end off storey ,as public representative he cant be seen to be dictating to the industry ,was it not this claim to open -ness and transparency that got fg elected over ff ,or will this stone be placed on the pile with the others waiting for the next election, like every politician when asked a question they start resiteing a well rehearsed mantra where they answer nothing and this is not good enough as the minister claiming the preventative benefits off these regulations ,

These 2 dealers whoever they are should be boycotted by every shooting man/woman in the country, Close the clowns down.
certainly every shooting man and woman should know who these people are and be given the choice to let them know what is thought of them and give them a better understanding of what it is to run a small business in times of recession, they must be made accountable of their actions

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Is it not public information ? Can it be found out under the freedom of information act ?

It is, but whether they give it to you or not is another question. Just because something is FOI-able does not mean you automatically get it.

grassroot1 wrote: »

Are the minutes of the FCP sub commitee available?

As above.

My local RFD is busiest between 5pm and 9pm in the evenings how will a time lock work for him?

As was said above time lock safes are set to open and lock between set hours. The RFD would set the hours.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

All time locks will achieve, is to make the crime take place during regular opening hours ........

Or as was the case with a certain dealer in Tullamore they will lay in wait for the opening/closing and hit then.

ayagerard wrote: »

........ ,as public representative he cant be seen to be dictating to the industry ........

As i said previously this is a win-win for him/Government as he has a group he claims represent shooting/firearms industry willing to offer up greater limitations without the need for full, open, discussion with all bodies involved. Why would he pass p that opportunity?

certainly every shooting man and woman should know who these people are and be given the choice to let them know what is thought of them and give them a better understanding of what it is to run a small business in times of recession, they must be made accountable of their actions

Contact the so called sport coalition and ask who sat on the sub committee and who claimed to represent RFDs and you'll have your answer. If they are as open and for the shooting community as they claim they'll have no issue with listing their representatives.

RossiFan08

Cass wrote: »

Contact the so called sport coalition and ask who sat on the sub committee and who claimed to represent RFDs and you'll have your answer. If they are as open and for the shooting community as they claim they'll have no issue with listing their representatives.

Paul Walsh's email if anyone wants to contact them

paul.a.walshpc@gmail.com

Nekarsulm

He hasn't replied to an email I sent him weeks ago.....

RossiFan08

Nekarsulm wrote: »

He hasn't replied to an email I sent him weeks ago.....

Had a string of emails with him and basically told me to ask the DOJ as everything is public record. He had no interest in telling me who the dealers are.

BattleCorp

RossiFan08 wrote: »

Had a string of emails with him and basically told me to ask the DOJ as everything is public record. He had no interest in telling me who the dealers are.

Is he still a gun dealer and a member of the FCP?

gunny123

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is he still a gun dealer and a member of the FCP?

I heard he had closed up shop, not surprised tbh.

solarwinds

Not very representative of the community he claims to be a spokesman for then.
Sure I used to be in national school I think that qualifies me to advise the Minister for Education on overhauling the schools in Ireland.
Clowns.