Changes to issuing pistol licences

gouda

Changes to issuing of pistol licences;
1. All pistol applications to be made to DoJ .
2. If application is successful, an authorisation will be issued which you then take to local station where licence will be issued.
3. Clubs will be checked to ensure that they have an approved range and are genuine clubs.
4. This one I am not too sure on as it doesn't make sense. Pistols will have to be stored at the range , similar to Northern Ireland. To the best of my knowledge, there are no pistols stored on N.I. ranges, so that's probably wrong.
5. These will soon be Amendments to the Firearms Act.

The application will be processed by the DoJ legal Dept. and will include the normal checks and also checks through the Super in your area. He will only be issuing licences based on you having obtained prior Authorisation from DoJ.

As far as I know, this is happening very soon. On the plus side,it should do away with a lot of the variation in issuing of pistol licences by different Superintendents. It should mean a standard approach to all pistol applications, which could be very good. I am unsure if it is also going to operate for other firearms but a standard approach would be very welcome by all shooters.

Sparks

What's the source on this? It seems to directly overrule Dunne v. Donoghue.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

What's the source on this? It seems to directly overrule Dunne v. Donoghue.

VERY reliable Garda source.It still leaves the Superintendent as the authorised licence issuing person,he just needs the authorisation from DoJ.

Sparks

gouda wrote:

VERY reliable Garda source.It still leaves the Superintendent as the authorised licence issuing person,he just needs the authorisation from DoJ.

But Dunne v. Donoghue didn't state that the Superintendent was the authorised licence issuer, it stated that he was the final authority on making the decision, and that no other body could override that authority - which is why I say the above sounds like it overrules Dunne. Which would imply a major change in the manner in which firearms legislation is arranged, and not a minor amendment!

There's also the question of the confusion it would create; if a superintendent is the final authority for a rifle or shotgun licence, but not a pistol licence, where lies the authority for those firearms that aren't easily classified, like shotpistols, long-arm pistols, and the like?

civdef

Storage on ranges will kill things stone dead. No range is going to take on the security risk of storing a whole heap of handguns.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Storage on ranges will kill things stone dead. No range is going to take on the security risk of storing a whole heap of handguns.

Indeed. I can only think of two ranges in the whole country (well, the whole republic) who could do that - the college ranges, where the range has campus security guards to secure things - and they're not open to the general public nor are they rated for anything but 10m air pistol.

And that still ignores the huge change this would represent - the entire structure of the firearms licenceing arrangements in this country are predicated on the final authority for the decision to licence an individual or not being a person who has local knowlege of the person - this takes that away for one class of firearm where arguably that knowlege is needed the most.

gouda

Sparks wrote:

But Dunne v. Donoghue didn't state that the Superintendent was the authorised licence issuer, it stated that he was the final authority on making the decision, and that no other body could override that authority - which is why I say the above sounds like it overrules Dunne. Which would imply a major change in the manner in which firearms legislation is arranged, and not a minor amendment!

There's also the question of the confusion it would create; if a superintendent is the final authority for a rifle or shotgun licence, but not a pistol licence, where lies the authority for those firearms that aren't easily classified, like shotpistols, long-arm pistols, and the like?

I would have to admit that I am confused by it too. The source has been spot on on other issues so I am inclined to believe it. It may well be a major change. I spoke briefly with a lady in DoJ on Tuesday regarding import licences and she was a little vague but did say that all pistol import licence applications were being dealt with on an individual basis by their legal dept. This was the first time anyone I spoke to in DoJ mentioned their legal dept.,so perhaps this is part of the same changes. Perhaps the Amendments could just add that a Super can only issue pistol licences when he receives the proper authorisation from DoJ? As I said, my source was pretty certain that the DoJ would be dealing with all pistol apps. and the authorisation would then have to be brought to the local station. Hope my source is right again, otherwise I will have to hide for a very very long time.

civdef

If they're worried about security surely it's counter-productive to locate all the handguns in nice convenient bunches rather than scattered around in ones and twos in private storage. No security system - short of that found in army barracks or garda stations with an armed presence would be likely to provide a sufficient deterrent.

Sparks

I do hope your source is wrong gouda, if he's correct, this is a major, fundamental change in the very basis of the firearms licencing legislation and to introduce such a change at the committee stage of a major bill which will see so much time dedicated to debating other serious parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the firearms act would be a bad mistake. This is the kind of thing that can lead to serious problems down the road because of not taking the necessary time to work through the changes it implies to the other rules, and wouldn't be something to do so lightly.

Perhaps it's time for another Parlimentary Question along the lines of "Will the Minister comment on whether or not the changes to the firearms act will involve fundamental changes relating to whom the final authority for a licencing decision rests with"?

gouda

Sparks wrote:

I do hope your source is wrong gouda, if he's correct, this is a major, fundamental change in the very basis of the firearms licencing legislation and to introduce such a change at the committee stage of a major bill which will see so much time dedicated to debating other serious parts of the bill that have nothing to do with the firearms act would be a bad mistake. This is the kind of thing that can lead to serious problems down the road because of not taking the necessary time to work through the changes it implies to the other rules, and wouldn't be something to do so lightly.

Perhaps it's time for another Parlimentary Question along the lines of "Will the Minister comment on whether or not the changes to the firearms act will involve fundamental changes relating to whom the final authority for a licencing decision rests with"?

Good idea. At least it will clarify the situation. As stated , the source has been very reliable on previous occasions, so it is hard to ignore the info.

Sparks

Another thing that occours to me is what's contained in Section 8 of the Act:

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

( c ) any person of unsound mind, and

( d ) any person who has been sentenced by any court in all Saorstát Éireann
for any crime to penal servitude for any term which has not expired or has
expired within five years previously, and

( e ) any person who has been sentenced by any court in Saorstát Éireann for
any crime to imprisonment for any term of not less that three months which has
not expired or has expired within five years previously, and

( f ) any person who is subject to the supervision of the police, and

( g ) any person who is bound by a recognizance to keep the peace or be of
good behaviour, a condition of which is that such person shall not have in his
possession, or use, or carry any firearm or ammunition.

(2) Any person who is by virtue of this section disentitled to hold a
firearm certificate shall also be disentitled to hold a permit under this Act
in relation to any firearm or ammunition.

Now 1(a) and 1(d) through 1(g) can be equally determined by a guy at a desk in the Phoenix Park and a local supervisor; but 1(b) and 1(c) require personal knowlege of the applicant (heck, 1(c) requires medical expertise and a pretty serious evaluation) - and since the consequences for a false positive here are discriminatory against law-abiding citizens and those for a false negative are the risk of a Dunblane incident... well, I'd vote to have the local superintendent or garda make that determination, not some lad sitting behind a desk with a stack of applications a foot high on his desk that have to be processed by the end of the week...

gouda

Sparks wrote:

Another thing that occours to me is what's contained in Section 8 of the Act:


Now 1(a) and 1(d) through 1(g) can be equally determined by a guy at a desk in the Phoenix Park and a local supervisor; but 1(b) and 1(c) require personal knowlege of the applicant (heck, 1(c) requires medical expertise and a pretty serious evaluation) - and since the consequences for a false positive here are discriminatory against law-abiding citizens and those for a false negative are the risk of a Dunblane incident... well, I'd vote to have the local superintendent or garda make that determination, not some lad sitting behind a desk with a stack of applications a foot high on his desk that have to be processed by the end of the week...

Good point. Let's hope my source is wrong this time. We should know soon as I was given the impression that this is happening very soon. I have had info from this person on different things previously and it is usually info that becomes public some days/weeks later. Probably be the same this time. Incidentally, I didn't say it was a male source.

jaycee

We should know soon as I was given the impression that this is happening very soon. I have had info from this person on different things previously and it is usually info that becomes public some days/weeks later.

Has your source any info on maximum calibres ...?

gouda

jaycee wrote:

Has your source any info on maximum calibres ...?

Don't know, the info I got was in relation to pistols.

Irishglockfan

I second the idea for another Dail question.The storage on the range is definately fishy,and too much a security risk

On the bye note i was talking this morning to my local SGT about my pistol application.I am the second person in this part of the world to apply for a permit apprently!But he said somthing intresting.that the local super in Limerick will only grant handgun lics on the basis of membership in a rifle &pistol club.Also that the gaurds were worried by a mass application for handgun lics for nothing really to do with ligit target shooting.But this doesnt seem to have happened sofar,and that they are quite comfortable in issueing the permits for very ligit cases.

On the mental evulation thing,i found out how they supposedly do it in Germany.You sign a disclaimer to forfeit the right of privacy of your medical file,or responsibility of the doc /head shrinker for making a false decision.Has caused unmitigated chaos over there.

.270 remington

hi all
things are not looking good with the doj
i wonder what will be the story if you have got the pistol licence
and apply to doj for import cert accompanied with article 7.
i am waiting for numbers from a dealer in the north at moment
hopefully he will get his finger out an move on this
i want to get cert before regulations change

oldzed

lets say it once more. You do not need an importation licence to bring in a handgun from the north or anywhere else, you need your licence , euro pass and article 7 . all of these are issued by your super . you do not need to go near doj, Stop worrying about dodgy rumours from unnamed and unknown sources . get your gun and enjoy it . thats all that counts. Dont mind the Possible what if Bs that 's floating around , most of these good sources always turn out to be crap or just someones opinion dressed up as a good source told me . I have rang a good few people who are usually in the know this morning and none of these rumours seem to have any basis in fact. get your gun and enjoy it and what happens happens . another half baked question and crap response in the dail isnt going to tell anything either.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

I second the idea for another Dail question.The storage on the range is definately fishy,and too much a security risk

I may be incorrect on this, but I was told that this condition once applied to the East Antrim rifle club. Those who've seen the EARC will understand what I mean when I say that it's an onerous requirement! (For the others, imagine a building that's virtually designed to withstand a siege, add more security and alarm electronics than some banks have, and that's what you're talking about for an unmanned clubhouse).

On the bye note i was talking this morning to my local SGT about my pistol application.I am the second person in this part of the world to apply for a permit apprently!But he said somthing intresting.that the local super in Limerick will only grant handgun lics on the basis of membership in a rifle &pistol club.

Well, not to be insulting to those from Limerick, but you can understand his motivation at least. (And again, it's totally legal and above board - but wouldn't be if these changes came through. That's the purpose of the "man on the ground" philosophy in the current Act).

Also that the gaurds were worried by a mass application for handgun lics for nothing really to do with ligit target shooting.But this doesnt seem to have happened sofar,and that they are quite comfortable in issueing the permits for very ligit cases.

Been hearing this from at least two other districts as well.

On the mental evulation thing,i found out how they supposedly do it in Germany.You sign a disclaimer to forfeit the right of privacy of your medical file,or responsibility of the doc /head shrinker for making a false decision.Has caused unmitigated chaos over there.

Well, I recall the Barr tribunal here recommending at one point that all applicants for a firearms licence (and all those renewing one) be required to undergo psychological evaluation....
Can anyone say "Yikes"? (Especially since a proper evaluation takes weeks of observation in a clinical facility by a qualified psychologist, at least in the UK).

oldzed

Fyi , last year I spent some time with some of the french pistol team and one of the guys just north of paris recounted a story that in his district , the police changed the rules and made them store their pistols at their range , one morning as a friend of his was opening up the range, a couple of nasties turned up shot his friend in the head and killed him and made off with 40 odd pistols , They can now store their pistols at home again . Its a pity it took an incident like that to change their minds and I hope it never happens here. It would have been impossible to have got all these guns if they had been stored at home with the owners where they should have been .

Gun Shy

Perhaps it's time for another Parlimentary Question along the lines of "Will the Minister comment on whether or not the changes to the firearms act will involve fundamental changes relating to whom the final authority for a licencing decision rests with"?.

Ask him that one and he has plenty of room to manouver (Duck and Dive) and more importantly your question will have to be explained to anyone not aware of the facts.

I'm afraid that the most commen question that will be asked after that PQ will be "What was that about"?

The format in which you ask it is all important because you cant go around to the media etc. explaining what you were asking or what your question was trying to achieve.

How about these and feel free to edit etc.

"Is it true that the DoJ is about to implement a policy at your behest which contradicts earlier high court rulings in relation to the issuing of firearms or is it indeed your intention to include this policy as an admendment to the criminal justice bill and if so how is this only coming to light now"


Is it true minister that the DOJ is about to enforce a policy whereby it will now be easier for criminals to steal legally held firearms in large quantities by simply looking up the golden pages and going to the nearest gunclub and stealing the contents, or is the minister going to sanction garda resources to secure these premices at night etc.

Can the Minister please explain how a system in which all legally held firearms being held in one place which can be so easily located be considered to be more secure than the previous system whereby firearm licence holders were in effect ananomous so the risk of being targetted specifically for their firearms alone was very limited.

Now if this is implemented then one raid could net hundreds of guns, can the minister please explain.

Sparks

Went back and reread the decision from Dunne :

33. It follows, in my view, that the learned High Court judge was correct in holding that the power conferred on garda superintendents by s.2 of the 1925 Act was conferred on him as a persona designata and that, accordingly, it vested in him a discretion which he could not abdicate to anyone else. Accordingly, while he can only exercise that discretion within any relevant statutory limitations, he cannot be required to exercise it in any particular manner by any other body or authority.

34. That conclusion is supported by the decision of the former Supreme Court in McLoughlin -v- the Minister for Social Welfare [1955] IR 1. In that case, an appeals officer in the Department of Social Welfare had purported to determine a question which came before him as to whether the appellant was in the employment of the Civil Service of the Government by reference to a minute from the Minister for Finance directing him so to hold. O’Dalaigh J., as he then was, characterised that view of his function as
“An abdication by him from his duty as an appeals officer.”

35. Similarly, in the State (Rajan) -v- The Minister for Industry and Commerce and Others , the High Court (Barron J), found to be erroneous a belief of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks that he had a general power of control over examiners in his department. Acting on that belief, the Controller, who was endeavouring to deal with arrears of work existing in his office, directed the examiners to allow certain applications through with limited investigation and, in certain cases, without any investigation whatsoever. Having cited the decision in McLoughlin, Barron J went on to say that
“the examination is a statutory function and there is nothing in the relevant statutory powers giving [the controller] such a right either as persona designata or as head of the patent office.”

So it's not that those changes would overrule Dunne so much as make an end run around it...

.270 remington

oldz i checked with two firearm dealers in NI today you have to have an import cert along with article 7 and your firearms pass otherwise
they will not supply without one.
regardless of what you tell them

Irishglockfan

]Fyi , last year I spent some time with some of the french pistol team and one of the guys just north of paris recounted a story that in his district , the police changed the rules and made them store their pistols at their range , one morning as a friend of his was opening up the range, a couple of nasties turned up shot his friend in the head and killed him and made off with 40 odd pistols , They can now store their pistols at home again . Its a pity it took an incident like that to change their minds and I hope it never happens here. It would have been impossible to have got all these guns if they had been stored at home with the owners where they should have been QUOTE]

No doubt if that happens here the logic will be well if he was shot it was with an illegal weapon ,and therefore there are now 40 more illegal weapons out ther,so lets ban handguns again,as they are only used bt criminals and a collective storage is too unsafe,doubly more so than having them dispersed all around the country.Or somthing to that effect :rolleyes:

Anyways OZ I agree with your point.Get it and enjoy it.Once you have it ,it becomes harder for them to take it off you.Also the rumour mill is a big problem and it only misinformes,distracts and causes much worrying on nothing much as well.My sources haven't heard anything on this one either.

oldzed

.270 remington wrote:

oldz i checked with two firearm dealers in NI today you have to have an import cert along with article 7 and your firearms pass otherwise
they will not supply without one.
regardless of what you tell them

Remy , I personally know 15-20 pistol owners down here including myself who have got our guns from the north without import licenses, i have it on headed paper and signed by justice that i dont need an import licence and have the same from the psni . many dealers in the north are spinning this BS on southern shooters about import licences but its not true, They dont want to deal with you and thats the problem . Justice are now issuing import licenses to individuals which they werent dong last year so technically these dealers may now sell to you but i doubt it as they will find some other excuse not to deal with you. there are plenty of dealers up there who will trade, try a few more and you should find one . if not come back to me and i will point you in the right direction.

gouda

oldzed wrote:

lets say it once more. You do not need an importation licence to bring in a handgun from the north or anywhere else, you need your licence , euro pass and article 7 . all of these are issued by your super . you do not need to go near doj, Stop worrying about dodgy rumours from unnamed and unknown sources . get your gun and enjoy it . thats all that counts. Dont mind the Possible what if Bs that 's floating around , most of these good sources always turn out to be crap or just someones opinion dressed up as a good source told me . I have rang a good few people who are usually in the know this morning and none of these rumours seem to have any basis in fact. get your gun and enjoy it and what happens happens . another half baked question and crap response in the dail isnt going to tell anything either.

OK, I sought clarification and here is what I got. Crime and Security have made these recommendations to DoJ based on meeting between Gardai and DoJ a couple of weeks ago which I spoke about here. The idea is that all pistol and rifle applications above .270 will be made to DoJ, they refer application to Crime and Security who then make enquiries about applicant at local level, Crime and Security report back to DoJ, if DoJ issue authorisation ,this is then brought to local station for Superintendent's final say so. The Super still has the power to refuse application at this stage if seen fit. Gardai are concerned about possibility of mass pistol and High Powere rifle applications and this arises from these concerns. These are recommendations and my source has said that recommendations to not always happen but the fact is that this is what C& S have recommended. If it is going to happen my source said that it will most likely be included in the CJB which is expected in April. Further to this, a shooter in Donegal tried to apply for a pistol licence at his local station, he was told the system is changing and all applications are being handled in Dublin. They said they will send him out the application form. This is new. Far from being rumour , this source has previouslytold me about upcoming court cases regarding .308 and pistols way ahead of this info being made public. Draw your own conclusions. On another issue ,my licence is for a pistol is sitting in my local station because some clerk forgot to notify C&S about my application so they will need to visit before I can get my licence. Their mistake,I suffer.

Anyway ,check with your contacts again ,the Garda/DoJ meeting took place, ask what recommendations were made or ask what the meeting was about, then you will definitely know what is going on and can post it here. I look forward to reading it.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Anyways OZ I agree with your point.Get it and enjoy it.Once you have it ,it becomes harder for them to take it off you.

It wasn't in '72, it isn't today. It takes a single legal order signed by the minister, and that's it. Unless you decide to barricade yourself in your house and repel all boarders.... :eek:

Now that's not a nice thing to have to admit, but sometimes you do have to grasp the nettle.

As to the rumour mill, yes, it can be a problem if it runs off without actual facts being available; but the solution is to put the facts out there, not to try to stop rumours which would be like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Besides, considering contingencies is a good thing.

Sparks

gouda wrote:

The idea is that all pistol and rifle applications above .270 will be made to DoJ, they refer application to Crime and Security who then make enquiries about applicant at local level, Crime and Security report back to DoJ, if DoJ issue authorisation ,this is then brought to local station for Superintendent's final say so. The Super still has the power to refuse application at this stage if seen fit.

So they go from local to central, who then asks local; central then tells local yay or nay, and then local has "the final say-so"???
For pity's sake...

First off, that makes a mockery out of the idea of the Superintendent as a persona designata. And it makes the idea of a judicial review about twice as complicated because whose decision are you reviewing?

A Bad Idea(tm) from start to finish...

Gardai are concerned about possibility of mass pistol and High Powere rifle applications and this arises from these concerns.

But the local superintendents can handle that. I'm surprised they don't feel somewhat snubbed by this.

These are recommendations and my source has said that recommendations to not always happen but the fact is that this is what C& S have recommended.

Well, then a few words in the right ears are definitely called for.

Further to this, a shooter in Donegal tried to apply for a pistol licence at his local station, he was told the system is changing and all applications are being handled in Dublin.

That wouldn't hold up to a judicial review. The system can't be changed in that way without new legislation, because it would mean that the Gardai would have the legal authority to overrule a Supreme Court decision.

Anyway ,check with your contacts again ,the Garda/DoJ meeting took place, ask what recommendations were made or ask what the meeting was about, then you will definitely know what is going on and can post it here. I look forward to reading it.

As would we all! The more facts available, the better. Rumour mills don't stop, so the only thing to do is put as many facts as possible out there to act as "rumour control".

.270 remington

hi lads
the story is the doj is waiting for new legislation as of 3 o clock today
permits in at moment will be processed as usual
any applications pending will be processed under new law
otherwise forget it my sourse is 100%
so lads get them applications in NOW
by the way do any of ye know any firearm dealer in NI that will sell you a
pistol without an import cert
having a lot of hassel with bs at moment even after paying deposit with NI dealer at this stage feel like saying whats wrong with my money
i am waiting 4 days for a serial nunber from germany (all it takes is a f....g fax)are the NI DEALERS PLAYING US OR WHAT

les45

Lads I understand that meetings have taken place, the outcome so far has being very positive, as part of these discussions a proposal to DOJ to visit some of the existing Ranges on the Island was put forward, and with this in mind NITSA have being requested to host a visit in the next couple of weeks, the visit will take place during a club competition weekend, the club has agreed to host the visit in the hope that such discussions "on site" will asist sports people in the South, so as Zed said!! apply and enjoy!!!

Irishglockfan

It wasn't in '72, it isn't today. It takes a single legal order signed by the minister, and that's it. Unless you decide to barricade yourself in your house and repel all boarders

yes,but I hope we are not as dare I say, naive as we were in 72.I doubt we would be as easily fobbed off with a tempoary custody order.I reckon the govt would be looking at a mass claim for loss of property.Hopefully we are smarter?

As to the rumour mill, yes, it can be a problem if it runs off without actual facts being available; but the solution is to put the facts out there, not to try to stop rumours which would be like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Besides, considering contingencies is a good thing]

Yes indeed,but what ARE the facts?Trouble is one fellow says he got it from his reliable source,another says his reliable source hasnt anything about this.Both are working to the same goal,but are causing damage to their cause by having to verify the genunines of both stories
And unless there is some mechanism to cross ref and verify either and both stories,both have to be treated as rumour,except either one of the stories may be the genuine truth!
Hence,the reason armies spend a long time in battle quelling rumours and insisting that they are not passed on.Even Sun tzu mentiones the detrimental effects rumours have on your army and the enemies army.
We really need somone who can take in all info,cross reference it as to its genuniness,and validity and then issue the story as fact.tough job i know but one that needs genuine consideration.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

yes,but I hope we are not as dare I say, naive as we were in 72.I doubt we would be as easily fobbed off with a tempoary custody order.I reckon the govt would be looking at a mass claim for loss of property.Hopefully we are smarter?

Smart has nothing to do with it - the TCO is every bit as legal today as it was in 1972. Remember, the law wasn't broken back then, just cynically used. Sadly, cynicism isn't illegal in this country. And there's little point in deliberately underestimating the seriousness of the problem!

We really need somone who can take in all info,cross reference it as to its genuniness,and validity and then issue the story as fact.tough job i know but one that needs genuine consideration.

[irony]And someone who doesn't mind being fired if they actually do the job[/irony] :rolleyes:

les45 wrote:

Lads I understand that meetings have taken place

Er, between whom?

the outcome so far has being very positive, as part of these discussions a proposal to DOJ to visit some of the existing Ranges on the Island was put forward, and with this in mind NITSA have being requested to host a visit in the next couple of weeks, the visit will take place during a club competition weekend, the club has agreed to host the visit in the hope that such discussions "on site" will asist sports people in the South

The idea's excellent - though I'm reminded of a similar visit from a good few years ago when one range in the south was visited by a rather high-ranking member of Government to show off some smallbore shooting, only for him to witness some people in pseudo-military uniforms cutting two-by-fours in half with pump-action shotguns.
Maybe NITSA should request that it's members put the best foot forward for the visit? These things can be very, very good or very, very bad depending on how they're run. The visit really needs someone to look after it full-time from the logistics to the meet-and-greet, to the tour, the discussions and introductions, to the send-off.

les45

Sparks, we are more than capable of hosting this visit,we are simply faciliting the visit on behalf of SSAI, many members of this forum have visited our range ,many have joined the club, I have no doubt that on the day we can and will make this a success.

les45

The wearing of any article of clothing that bears any emblem or insignia, is strictly banned, the wearing of any parmilitary type clothing is strictly banned.,this rule is strictly enforced on NITSA ranges.

civdef

This subject seems to have gone quiet of late. Any developemts on the licencing process?

les45

The Doj visit took place last Saturday, the Doj visitors spent about 90minutes on the range, viewing members of City Of Dublin shooting ,and also meeting and discussing NITSA/ UKPSA/ IPSA, pistol saftey course with our Chief Saftey Instructor.

civdef

Interesting, what was the general atmosphere of the meeting like?

les45

I felt it went well, the doj were very interested in our Pistol Saftey course, they were( I hope) impressed with the amount of detail and time involved in completing the course, our CPI went through the various aspects of the course ,pre reads, qualification shoot, etc. , we emphised the need for sportspeople to have access tovarious differant caliberes ,and not just .22 and .32sw. They left with plenty of food for thought, !!

BlackDot

Sparks - with regard central - super, I would assume that it means that if you go in and say to your super you want a 9mm Glock to go to the olympics, by involving central we now have someone who finally knows something about guns doing the relevent checks. It brings some consistancy to the process and people who have a legitimate reason for a high power gun have nothing to worry about.

One final thing:
AT LONG LAST THE DOJ ARE TALKING TO SHOOTERS AND WHATS MORE THEY APPEAR AT LEAST TO BE LISTENING

Why then I ask are people not being slightly positive but are still whinging?

BD

Sparks

BlackDot wrote:

Sparks - with regard central - super, I would assume that it means that if you go in and say to your super you want a 9mm Glock to go to the olympics, by involving central we now have someone who finally knows something about guns doing the relevent checks.

That's assuming that the one chap whose desk all the applications arrive on can handle dealing with the applications from the hundred thousand or so people applying now, and the people who apply for pistol licences now that they're available (currently we have 160,000 shotguns, and 40,000 rifles - so how many pistols will we end up with? 10,000? 20,000?). And yes, you can have a team of people for that, but there still has to be one signature on it - and what happens if the system breaks and we have a Dunblane incident, with the Minister's signature on the cert of the loon who pulls the trigger?

It brings some consistancy to the process and people who have a legitimate reason for a high power gun have nothing to worry about.

Except that the very core of the thinking behind the Firearms Acts will have been changed in a very rushed manner. Dunno 'bout you, but a major change, hastily carried out, without much debate... it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside...

AT LONG LAST THE DOJ ARE TALKING TO SHOOTERS AND WHATS MORE THEY APPEAR AT LEAST TO BE LISTENING
Why then I ask are people not being slightly positive but are still whinging?

Whinging? I wouldn't say whinging. I'd say concerned, with just cause.
(And I'll wait until the final version of the bill is published before I pop the champagne cork. Just to be sure, you know?).

mosulli4

Any updates on this issue?

I am a 36 year old irish shooter, with interest in all shooting aspects (clays, game shooting, rimfire target, and centrefire target). I have held some form of license since the age of 17.

I want to see the laws changed to ease both Garda administration, and my own requirements. I have followed these threads with great interest.

I have written to Minister McDowell, CC my local TD, looking for the following...

.No restriction on rifle calibre
.ability for individuals to handload
.pistol availability and the rights to license/wholesalers to import
.bunching us all in as criminals on the DOJ justice bill.

however I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment...

I can understand that those people (who are still alive, after the temporary custody order) want their pistols back. I can understand those people who want pistols for internationally regulated disciplines (mostly .22lr calibre).

What do we need 9mm or .40SW/45 calibre high capacity automatics for in this country?

For "Practical Pistol"? - what are we practising for? We cannot defend our homes from criminals using such hardware.
In essence we have nothing to be practical about. There is no doubt in my mind that this form of shooting is fun, and those who succeed at it are on top of their game, but what is the point in this country?

I have been delighted and privileged to shoot some serious hardware at the taxpayers expense as a member of the FCA. Examples include the FN FAL rifle, FN MAG machine gun, and even the 25 pounder howitzer!Another example would be the 9mm Browning High Power (the BAP) pistol. Believe me I would love one in my gunsafe. However I cannot see a legitimate reason to own one, unless an international, regulated, "match" discipline is available. I do not mean any offense, but just because some countries allow practical pistol does not mean it has an application in this country. Typical match pistol events use good old .22 short/long or long rifle. If I am wrong, please inform me, and I will order my CZ-85 as soon as possible. I have shot as a guest in the US on a large range. Pistol Shooters tended to fall into 4 general categories...

1. Practising with the home defense pistol - typically a revolver in .38 special or .44 magnum or an auto in .45acp. - Great if it is enshrined in the legal system.

2. Pistol hunters - long barrell .44 magnum/Thomson Contender single shots in exotic calibres. - It is hard enough to find/justify deer permits in this country, and we have no grizzlies to worry about.

3. Match pistol/ rapid fire competition shooters, using .22 pistols or air pistols.

4. Camo clad SWAT wannabees with hi-cap autos, playing Walter Mitty. - Worrying.

I genuinly believe that the temporary custody order has created a vacuum of regulation over the past 30 odd years. I would love to own an FN FAL rifle, but why? Lets be careful what we wish for.
If we are unrealistic all will be lost, as in the UK. Think of the boy racers/hoodies in your locality. I am sure they would love a hi-cap 9mm to bolster their street cred, as they fantasise about being rapper gangsters. If they have no criminal record they will succeed, and f*ck it up for the rest of us...


regards, and expecting much negative response...

mosulli4

Sparks

mosulli4 wrote:

Any updates on this issue?

Got this by email the other day:

From: SSAI PRO
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 12:41 PM
Subject: DOJ visits to ranges update
Dear all
Just to update you on the recent visits to ranges with Tom Lynch of the
DOJ. Tom is the Principal Officer in the Firearms and Explosives Section
of the Department of Justice.

We visited the ranges of the Northern Ireland Target Shooting Association,
this is a purpose built pistol range jus 8 kilometres North of Newry, this
visit took place on Saturday 5th March, there was a City of Dublin Pistol
competition on at the time of the visit and also a safety course being run
for club members, Tom was impressed with the way the club was run and all
of the aspects of the safe use of pistols on the range.

Yesterday 12th Tom visited the new range in Fingal, Fingal Sporting Club
and also Courtlough, he was very impressed with the standards of
construction and as Cortlough was very busy was also impressed with the
numbers of people participating in shooting sports.

I believe that the visits were well received and our thanks to the ranges
that allowed us to visit, Tom was open about the fact that he now has a
better understanding of our Sport and clearly the visits were worthwhile
with this outcome.

At this point the DOJ have had meetings with SSAI, the Pony Club and the
NTSA, the SSAI will be meeting them again in the near future to better
understand the proposed changes to the legislation. As the CJB has now had
its second reading with the further proposals to be added a committee
stage it would be envisaged that the CJB and the amendments to the
firearms acts will be brought forward into legislation probably by the
Autumn.

Kind Regards
Declan

From what I've heard through other channels, it seems air and .22 pistols will be fine, but higher calibres are something they want strictly controlled - the idea of anyone walking about with sidearms isn't one they're really willing to accept, but they happen to think that olympic shooting and that kind of organised target shooting is a perfectly safe sport and don't want to restrict it. Also there's a new kind of licence for training people being discussed, which will be a licence to use but not possess, and which would be available for ages 12 and up for airguns and 14 and up for cartridge guns - but the parents/guardians would have to have a licence to own the firearm and the ammunition. Which seems perfectly reasonable to me - no 12-year-old ought to be off shooting unsupervised!

I have written to Minister McDowell, CC my local TD, looking for the following...
.No restriction on rifle calibre

I don't think there is one at present, at least not on the books. Practically, mind, you'd want a safe range to use it at so 20mm calibre rifles aren't going to happen anytime soon

.ability for individuals to handload

That one's odd. You can have (as I understand it), all of the tools and most of the materials, and the activity itself is legal, but propellant and primers need an explosives licence? But you see, even if it's incredibly akward to the point of a de facto ban, it's still legally available...

.pistol availability and the rights to license/wholesalers to import

I think that's going to clear up as soon as the rules get thrashed out properly. For a civil servant to stick his neck out... well, it's a rare event since there's no reward for them to do so, only punishments. That japanese saying applies - "the nail that stands out gets hammered". (And blaming the nail, as I've seen some people doing with relish, is just stupid and doesn't do anyone any favours at all).

bunching us all in as criminals on the DOJ justice bill.

I still think that one is a bit of a triviality. If we were being covered in a criminal Act, that'd be different, but a Bill, well, at worst it's a faux pas. Remember, the rules are still called the Firearms Act, even if they were amended in a bill of a different name - the actual ruleset hasn't changed, it's just had an amendment added to it. The routes by which the amendments arrive are pretty much secondary to what's actually in them. For all the noise from some quarters on this, I imagine that if the amendments suddenly cut out 90% of the regulations we had to follow and made our lives much easier, people wouldn't care if they were put forward in the ShootersAreABunchOfIdiots Bill 2005!

However I cannot see a legitimate reason to own one, unless an international, regulated, "match" discipline is available.

Hmmm. There are IPSC, IDPA and other "practical" disciplines, but there is a debate between IPSC and ISSF regarding whether they're "match" disciplines or not (and regardless of the cattiness of the debate, some good points have been raised against the IPSC style of discipline that haven't yet been answered). There are also national-level competitions like the US's NRA bullseye three-gun match. And there are fullbore ISSF competitions that go to world championships level but they only go up to .32 calibre. But for a definitive answer you must define what you mean by a "legitimate" match, which isn't easy to do. It's one of those lines that gets blurrier the closer you look at it.

3. Camo clad SWAT wannabees with hi-cap autos, playing Walter Mitty.

And welcome to the nightmare of the DoJ! One shooter from this category and they'd run a mile and ban the lot. Which is why I keep saying that PR's no small thing...

regards, and expecting much negative response...

Negative responses are fine (one-sided debate's a bit boring) - uncivil responses won't be acceptable!
Just pre-empting anyone who might get hot under the collar there

Sparks

mosulli4 wrote:

I have written to Minister McDowell, CC my local TD, looking for the following...

BTW, did you CC the letter to the DoJ's email address looking for feedback on the Criminal Justice Bill? See this thread for details and feel free to post your own letter!

mosulli4

BTW,

I did send the original memo to the DOJ, and recieved a very snooty letter from the Minister,via my local TD, stating that the criminal justice bill was just a timely and convenient vehicle for reform!


regards,

mosulli4


I

mosulli4

Sparks,

you wrote...

"And welcome to the nightmare of the DoJ! One shooter from this category and they'd run a mile and ban the lot. Which is why I keep saying that PR's no small thing..."

This I think, is the centre of my argument, although you put it more elequently!. If the international community can endorse such a discipline, , and it is properly regulated then I am all for it...


regards and thanks for your input...


mosulli4

mosulli4

Sparks,

you wrote....
"But for a definitive answer you must define what you mean by a "legitimate" match, which isn't easy to do. It's one of those lines that gets blurrier the closer you look at it. "

In my experience, at best, a standard hi-cap, basic, commodity, auto, is not a match pistol, i.e tightest group on target. I have shot good/bad BAPS in a standard Irish Military "range practice", and felt that it is a very basic/last resort weapon, even in skilled or practiced hands. "Might as well throw it as the target at 10 yards" rings a bell, even amongst good shooters. Is it worth the effort? The most common problem I recall on the range was ricochets from the round nosed ball ammo, and ll that that entails. What counts, in US "practical pistol", is number of rounds in the "kill zone", whilst standing/running/kneeling/sitting/making love to a beautiful woman... Even the human format of the targets is a worry...


without a good reason to own such hardware it is difficult to justify...
and the use of human shaped targets is bound to raise the hackles of any anti-gun/green party lobby.

Please correct me if I am wrong...


regards, and respectively yours.



mosulli4

Sparks

mosulli4 wrote:

In my experience, at best, a standard hi-cap, basic, commodity, auto, is not a match pistol, i.e tightest group on target.

True - but trying to define, in legal terms, the difference between a stock Colt 1911 and a Kimber Custom Target II is a bit difficult. Not to mention that there are subtle differences between fullbore pistols optimised for bullseye target shooting and those optimised for IPSC-style shooting (See here for details). Subtle differences like that don't make it into laws. Legislation drafters want something simple, easily measurable and as straightforward and simple as possible (remember, the Gardai who administer the law and follow the regulations laid down in statutory instruments - which is where any of the details go - generally don't get trained in firearms law at all). Hence the reason that it's as easy to get a .220 swift rifle as it is to get a .22lr rifle (they're both .22 calibre) and the reason that air pistols were as impossible to get licences for as 9mm glocks were (they're both pistols).

What counts, in US "practical pistol", is number of rounds in the "kill zone", whilst standing/running/kneeling/sitting/making love to a beautiful woman... Even the human format of the targets is a worry...

Well, anyone who's read what I post knows I agree with you on this - I don't care about the firearm being used, it's the target that bothers me (and the fact that you're essentially training out the natural hesitation time that people have when it comes to shooting other people, as found by the US army in post-WW1 research).

Thing is, when you think "well, let's just ban it then", you notice that the same firearms are used in disciplines like NRA bullseye which are pretty much exactly what gets shot in the olympics, only with different calibres and with targets scaled accordingly. You'd have to ban a firearm based on the intent of the user, and that's pretty much impossible (as well as being horribly orwellian).