nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Target shooting with rifle while not on an authorised range

Walter Mittys Brother

Been reading threads and it appears that the CJA 2006 made it illegal to shoot "targets" with a rifle or pistol anywhere apart from a Garda authorised range. (I think that's right?)

I have read the Act online and can only find a reference that if you want a rifle or pistol for target shooting you have to be a member of a Garda authorised range.

Can someone give me a link to where the restriction on location is please?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sparks

Asked a while back after a TD broke that part of the law on national TV (and had his firearms confiscated for it if what I heard of the fallout was correct): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87734488

There are some further links in that post if you want to delve deeper.

cavan shooter

So just to be clear and in fairness, This pops up quite a lot and forgive me if I attract the annoyance of a couple of people but what about the sighting of a rifle prior to hunting, or even this scenario.

"My 22 is zeroed on the range, its has handy a place to do it but .....before I got after rabbits, I put a steel plate out the back field to check that its still through, make my adjustments and off I go"

If it is as SPARKS is Saying I think we need to lobby our organisations to have this clarified and amended to make it workable.

Sparks

There's nothing in any primary or secondary legislation that exempts zeroing CS, there never has been.
We had a letter from the Minister saying that zeroing wasn't the intended target of the legislation, but that's it; and that doesn't trump an Act of the Oireachtas. And we know people have fallen foul of this in the last few years.

The regulations he speaks of, as far as I can tell, never came to pass.

Luckysasha

I find it amusing that you can’t sight a rifle on your own land yet you can buy a box of clay pigeons and spend all day throwing and shooting them in your back garden so to speak. Personally speaking I have zeroed my rifle on my own land but I’m half a mile from a road and using a moderator. So unless the garda helicopter is passing overhead I reckon I’m safe enough lol

cavan shooter

That letter sparks is a very, very important letter. And while I agree with you that the SI doesn't specifically exempt zeroing a rifle, there is comfort in it.

I also know whom id have fighting my case if it came down to it.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

Asked a while back after a TD broke that part of the law on national TV (and had his firearms confiscated for it if what I heard of the fallout was correct): http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=87734488

There are some further links in that post if you want to delve deeper.

Thanks !

So, this part is what we're basing this ban on target shooting on?

the CJB are in Section 4B, part 4 :
(4) An inspector who suspects, with reasonable cause, that any place is being used for rifle or pistol target shooting may enter and inspect it, at any time and without prior notice.
and in the definitions in Section 1 :
“place” means a physical location and includes—
(a) a dwelling, residence, building or abode,
(b) a vehicle, whether mechanically propelled or not,
(c) a vessel, whether sea-going or not,
(d) an aircraft, whether capable of operation or not,
(e) a hovercraft, or
(f) any other place whatsoever;

For me, and I'm no legal eagle, there is nothing there that could be interpreted as a ban on target shooting anywhere except a range.

ezra_

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Thanks !

For me, and I'm no legal eagle, there is nothing there that could be interpreted as a ban on target shooting anywhere except a range.

But that is the point - target shooting should only take place in an authorised range.

Cass

The bit you quoted just said that if a range inspecor finds target shooting or suspects it on any of the listed places they can enter without prior notice.

If, according to the bit you quoted, a range inspector turns up, inspects the area/premises the shooting is taking place on and determines it to be a range and you cannot provide the necessary licenses/authorisation and receipts for paid fees (not to mention conform to the guidelines for ranges as laid out in the SI) then any shooting taking place on said land would fall outside the remit/protection of the Act/SIs.

Walter Mittys Brother

ezra_ wrote: »

But that is the point - target shooting should only take place in an authorised range.

Big difference between "should" & "must only".

Cass wrote: »

The bit you quoted just said that if a range inspecor finds target shooting or suspects it on any of the listed places they can enter without prior notice.

Agreed.

Cass wrote: »

If, according to the bit you quoted, a range inspector turns up, inspects the area/premises the shooting is taking place on and determines it to be a range and you cannot provide the necessary licenses/authorisation and receipts for paid fees (not to mention conform to the guidelines for ranges as laid out in the SI) then any shooting taking place on said land would fall outside the remit/protection of the Act/SIs.

Agreed.

In your scenario the range inspector would have to determine that the area was being run as a "range" inferring a commercial setup? So if it's not a commercial arrangement then does it come under the legislation/SI's?

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

There's nothing in any primary or secondary legislation that exempts zeroing CS, there never has been.
We had a letter from the Minister saying that zeroing wasn't the intended target of the legislation, but that's it; and that doesn't trump an Act of the Oireachtas. And we know people have fallen foul of this in the last few year

The regulations he speaks of, as far as I can tell, never came to pass.

I find it strange that a letter from the Minister stating that zeroing wasn't intended to be part of the legislation can't be used in court as a defence should one get caught zeroing on private land...............................but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister. In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

In your scenario the range inspector would have to determine that the area was being run as a "range" inferring a commercial setup?

No. Firstly, there is nothing in the Act's definition of a Range that says it must be commercial in nature the way you're thinking of it; secondly the range inspector is only required to determine that the area was being used for target shooting. Not that it was being run as a Range (whether commercial or not).

And yes, this has been done in the (relatively) recent past. People have been hauled up on this point in reality, it is not some merely academic point.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

No. Firstly, there is nothing in the Act's definition of a Range that says it must be commercial in nature the way you're thinking of it; secondly the range inspector is only required to determine that the area was being used for target shooting. Not that it was being run as a Range (whether commercial or not).

True. Good points. But the section I highlighted above only give him/her power to enter premises, without warrant i assume?

Sparks wrote: »

And yes, this has been done in the (relatively) recent past. People have been hauled up on this point in reality, it is not some merely academic point.

"hauled up" ...... as in arrested or even questioned under caution?

Anyone been convicted?

ezra_

Sparks wrote: »

hauled up on this point in reality, it is not some merely academic point.

What court were they done in?

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I find it strange that a letter from the Minister stating that zeroing wasn't intended to be part of the legislation can't be used in court as a defence should one get caught zeroing on private land

It's not that strange, it's direct fallout from the primacy of the Oireachtas (which you'll remember is why shooters won the Dunne-v-Donohue case in the supreme court). The Act doesn't exempt zeroing; a letter from an ex-Minister says "whoops, I didn't mean that". In terms of legislation, the former is a law; the latter and three euro will get you a fancy cup of coffee.

Now where it gets strange is when you ask "what's target shooting in the eyes of the law", because there isn't a definition in the Act that bans it. There are definitions in secondary legislation, but I don't know if anyone's ever tested those. And honestly, I worry that one day someone will hire a barrister to mount a defence against a charge under the Act on the basis that the act is sufficiently vague as to be unconstitutional. If they won (and it's not immediately clear that they wouldn't), it would do a fair amount of damage to the Act itself and then there'd be a scramble on the government side to slap a patch in place, out of embarrassment if nothing else.

And I have never seen a good law put in place on that kind of timescale with that kind of pressure. I've never even heard of it happening. I wouldn't be surprised if we suddenly found half our sports or equipment made illegal as a result, whether by design or by incompetence in drafting (both of which have happened in the past).

but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister. In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Well, the argument is that the Minister has said it shall be so; the Act empowers them to do so (it does btw); and the only reason the law isn't passed there and then is the delays imposed by the civil service, which the law tends to disregard as being merely an implementation detail which doesn't affect the design.

It's when the same thing is threatened *before* the Minister makes a statement announcing such a ban that things make no damn sense.

Cass

I'm having issues with my internet connection and speeds are dial up slow. I'm getting reply notifications before i can get a reply posted so apologies for any overlap.

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

In your scenario the range inspector would have to determine that the area was being run as a "range" inferring a commercial setup? So if it's not a commercial arrangement then does it come under the legislation/SI's?

But there is no mention of commercial being any part of a range. That is something that you are inferring as being necessary to be considered a range.

If being a commercial entity was all that was stopping guys from setting up ranges without the need for licenses/authorisations i'm sure someone would have exploited it long before now and the DoJ would have created legislation to close any loophole.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I find it strange that a letter from the Minister stating that zeroing wasn't intended to be part of the legislation can't be used in court as a defence should one get caught zeroing on private land.............

I'd imagine it has to do with a Minister's "word" not superseding law. So if a minister gave you a letter saying he didn't mean for people to go to jail for robbing banks it wouldn't make robbing them legal.

..................but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister.

Fairly crap, isn't it. It's a stealth ban as can be seen by the exact scenario with semi autos. They're not banned or capped, but with the threat of loosing them people have stopped buying them.

In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Yup. Same thing as done with pistols.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

True. Good points. But the section I highlighted above only give him/her power to enter premises, without warrant i assume?

The section gives him the power to enter any place or vehicle or pretty much any area at all without warrant and to carry out a search at any time, yes. And it's only the enforcement part; the "this is illegal" part comes from reading sections 2(5), 4A and 4(2)(e) of the act together. A few parts of the firearms law in this country are like that - not always completely explicit (though parts can be) but fully defined by the boundaries laid down in other sections of the law.

"hauled up" ...... as in arrested or even questioned under caution?

I've never heard of anyone being arrested for it so far (I think we all would because the papers would latch onto that like a dog on a steak); I've heard of written orders to cease doing it or face prosecution and I've heard of firearms being confiscated (though I'm not sure if the licences were revoked in that case). I don't know if it's been brought to court in any case yet but I've not been looking out for that.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass, I more or less agree with you. So the actual definition of a "range" would be important? A lad in a field with a "target" pinned to a tree lying on the ground could hardly be construed as using/being on a "range"?

Sparks, a written order from who, the Super/Chief Super? Do they carry any legal standing? Bit like a solicitors letter. Bit worrying but it won't send you to jail. A Judge needs to sanction that

The threat of a prosecution is always there if you break a law, surely. These written orders must refer to what legislation they intend to prosecute under?

I'm intrigued by the "written orders".

Sparks

The definition of range is not important in this context WMB, because the range inspector in this context is looking for target shooting; not a range. That's the problem.

And a written order from the department IIRC; who are the people who'd bring the case. And in this context, that has more weight than a solicitor's letter (which as the old saying puts it, can be written about anything for about thirty euro - though I think prices have gone up since), because it's saying "based on this evidence we believe you are breaking this law and if you don't stop we will be prosecuting". And the evidence in this case had been publicly available (I don't know if it still is or if they took it off the website it was on afterwards, but I did see it at the time and I privately rated their chances in a legal defence of "it wasn't us" as being rather poor).
And no, the threat of prosecution is only there if you are *detected* breaking a law. Note that I have this information second-hand, so E&OE and all that; you'd have to FOI the details from the department if you wanted first-hand and I think they'd refuse the request at that. So don't ask me to name names because refusal often disappoints

Incidentally, if it had been AGS writing, I don't believe they would threaten prosecution unless you stopped; you'd just get a letter saying that your licence had been revoked under section 5 because the Superintendent believed you had broken the terms of your licence and you'd wind up in court over it if you wanted to disagree. If they were in the mood to just tell you to stop, you'd be more likely to get a phone call or a quiet chat or something else that leaves no written record (as the existence of such a record might preclude the possibility of just issuing an informal warning).

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

......but if you newly licence a centrefire semi-automatic firearm, you risk losing it if legislation is passed in the future based on a statement in the Dail by a Minister. In other words the ban would be backdated to when the Minister made the statement and any centrefire semi-auto licences issued since the statement would be invalidated which seems totally illogical to me.

Not that simple anymore, as it would be challenged right away in both supreme and EU courts by pan EU shooting organisations as a violation of EUHR section 5 and 7. Yes, you can ban stuff, but anyone who you deprive of their previously legally licensed and owned property must be compensated for it at current at the time value.So the govt cant say,"well its only worth 50 quid".Comes from Herr Hitler &Co robbing valuable art and property of a certain religious group back in the 1930s, and why the UK handgun ban became such a fiasco. It's why the EU went on this issue to grandfathering and the same reason here in Ireland.The govt doesn't like paying compo to its sheep, as it would open a vast Pandora's box of compensation cases in this State since its foundation.

Sparks

Yes, you can ban stuff, but anyone who you deprive of their previously legally licensed and owned property must be compensated for it at current at the time value.

You'd be laughed out of court when the government pointed out that you had not been deprived of your legally owned property, but just the licence which you have no legal right to (and it was pointed out that the EU law on this explicitly permits member states to enact far harsher laws on firearms than the EU baseline regulations).

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Cass, I more or less agree with you. So the actual definition of a "range" would be important? A lad in a field with a "target" pinned to a tree lying on the ground could hardly be construed as using/being on a "range"?

I believe range is defined/explained in the SI and possibly the Act (cannot cite or be bothered to research it) as is the criteria for building one and running one.

My comment about range vs club is really about semantics and the use of the word. When discussing it here or face to face we often use words that may not be exactly what they mean in terms that are correct, specific or legal.

Quick example when discussing reloading i've heard lads call bullets, heads. It's not the right use of the word and head means the head of the case, but if someone says to me what heads am i using i know what they mean. Same with ranges and clubs. I've often mixed and used both words when referring to my range. Granted one may be more correct than the other but in the context of talking to someone i tend not to be as concerned about the wording i use as long as the person knows what i mean.

While all of that is fine for us in day to day stuff in legal terms it has different and sometimes much more meaningful interpretations.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

............ Yes, you can ban stuff, but anyone who you deprive of their previously legally licensed and owned property must be compensated for it at current at the time value.........................The govt doesn't like paying compo to its sheep, as it would open a vast Pandora's box of compensation cases in this State since its foundation.

This comes back to a discussion on here about ownership vs authority to possess. They can ban the ability to license/possess it, but to strip you of your ownership is another ball of wax and why we never see outright bans, but such stealth bans as mentioned above including grandfathering.

As i said before in relation to cars. If they wanted cars gone in the morning they could stop issuing driving licenses. The car is still your property, you just cannot drive it. Obviously guns are different in that you cannot possess one without a license, but i think you get my point. If they ban the ability to license a firearm the gun still remains your property you just cannot use/possess it.

As for the EU stuff, i don't think i understand it as well as you do, but EU does not supersede state law when state law is stricter/harsher, etc than EU law. Also does the bit your quoted:

EUHR section 5 and 7

Refer to ECHR articles 5 & 7 regarding freedom of liberty and security? If so how does that apply to this scenario?

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

And it's only the enforcement part; the "this is illegal" part comes from reading sections 2(5), 4A and 4(2)(e) of the act together.

Sorry, which Act?

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

The definition of range is not important in this context WMB, because the range inspector in this context is looking for target shooting; not a range. That's the problem.

Oh my head

So the crime is/would be target shooting? or is it target shooting while not on an authorised range?

So then the person/s would have to be deemed to be target shooting, the location would have to be deemed to be a range and the charge would be that they were target shooting on a range that isn't authorised?

Sparks wrote: »

And a written order from the department IIRC; who are the people who'd bring the case. And in this context, that has more weight than a solicitor's letter (which as the old saying puts it, can be written about anything for about thirty euro - though I think prices have gone up since), because it's saying "based on this evidence we believe you are breaking this law and if you don't stop we will be prosecuting". And the evidence in this case had been publicly available (I don't know if it still is or if they took it off the website it was on afterwards, but I did see it at the time and I privately rated their chances in a legal defence of "it wasn't us" as being rather poor).
And no, the threat of prosecution is only there if you are *detected* breaking a law. Note that I have this information second-hand, so E&OE and all that; you'd have to FOI the details from the department if you wanted first-hand and I think they'd refuse the request at that. So don't ask me to name names because refusal often disappoints

TBH, is a written order from DOJ won't mean you've been deemed guilty with a possible criminal record, fine and/or some jail time. Not that I'd want to receive one !!!!!!

Sparks wrote: »

Incidentally, if it had been AGS writing, I don't believe they would threaten prosecution unless you stopped; you'd just get a letter saying that your licence had been revoked under section 5 because the Superintendent believed you had broken the terms of your licence and you'd wind up in court over it if you wanted to disagree. If they were in the mood to just tell you to stop, you'd be more likely to get a phone call or a quiet chat or something else that leaves no written record (as the existence of such a record might preclude the possibility of just issuing an informal warning).

I'll take your word on that. A friendly Garda warning would stop most of us alright but still doesn't make what you were doing illegal.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

But there is no mention of commercial being any part of a range. That is something that you are inferring as being necessary to be considered a range.

Fair enough but to clarify I'm coming at this from the point of a lad, on his own, shooting, safely, a "target" with his licenced rifle, with permission on private land with a paper target pinned to a tree with no other infrastructure eg firing point, shed etc

extremetaz

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

with a paper target pinned to a tree

Whilst there are many points which are already under discussion here - and by folk far more knowledgable than myself, I have a peripheral concern about this particular practice.

Any tree suitable for use as a backstop has taken a great many years to get into that condition - knocking great big bloody lumps out of it for nothing more than your own amusement is, in my estimation at least, more than a little out of keeping with the general ethos of responsible fieldcraft.

When you're zeroing in your rifle please consider using a backstop which can either be easily repaired or replaced.

Walter Mittys Brother

extremetaz wrote: »

Whilst there are many points which are already under discussion here - and by folk far more knowledgable than myself, I have a peripheral concern about this particular practice.

Any tree suitable for use as a backstop has taken a great many years to get into that condition - knocking great big bloody lumps out of it for nothing more than your own amusement is, in my estimation at least, more than a little out of keeping with the general ethos of responsible fieldcraft.

When you're zeroing in your rifle please consider using a backstop which can either be easily repaired or replaced.

Don't worry, I'll be careful when I'm cutting it down with my chainsaw

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sorry, which Act?

The 1925 act, as amended.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks, I looked at sections 2(5), 4a & 4(2)(e) here

http://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1925/act/17/front/revised/en/html

Can't see how they'd prosecute someone for having a few shots with their rifle outside an authorised range everything else being legal eg permission, safety, licenced etc.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Oh my head
So the crime is/would be target shooting? or is it target shooting while not on an authorised range?

The latter.

So then the person/s would have to be deemed to be target shooting, the location would have to be deemed to be a range and the charge would be that they were target shooting on a range that isn't authorised?

No. The person would have to be deemed as target shooting (which effectively boils down to shooting at anything other than an animal when using a rifle or pistol); and the location would have to be deemed to not be an authorised range (under section 4A or presumably 2(5)). Whether the location is a range or not is not relevant - it could be an range whose paperwork isn't done or it could be the middle of grafton street as far as that particular chunk of the law is concerned (obviously other chunks of the law would be involved as well if it was the middle of grafton street).

TBH, is a written order from DOJ won't mean you've been deemed guilty with a possible criminal record, fine and/or some jail time. Not that I'd want to receive one !!!!!!

This is correct and the phrase "hauled up", you'll notice, is not spelt "convicted in a court of law and sentenced". You'll also note that "bad stuff" doesn't start with being deemed guilty, your life becomes hassled a long, long time before you hit that stage.

Also WMB, if you want a completely formal discussion on this, I'll start by pointing out that I'm not looking to pass the bar in the next hundred years and don't care to pay for the insurance to practice and give a professional legal opinion. My comments here are based on having had my head stuck in that ****ty piece of legalese for far too many years and the discussions with people in the DoJ and AGS and elsewhere over those years about the law and its implications and interpretations and implementation. I'd bet my house on my actions but I wouldn't bet my toenail clippings against your actions if you treat what I say as formal legal advice

When I get a spare decade I'll write my notes up all nice and formal-like for the law review and then you can take a copy to your solicitor and have his insurance cover the risk of using it in court

I'll take your word on that. A friendly Garda warning would stop most of us alright but still doesn't make what you were doing illegal.

That's not what a section five rescinding means.
If the local Super yanks your licence under section 5 you can take him to court about it and lose and still not have done anything illegal. Reference section 5(a) and 5(e) for examples.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks, I note your statements and assure you I will not quote what I've been told her as my defence if I end up in front of the Mr/Mrs Justice XXXXX

In the absence of a conviction we're in limbo realistically. And NO I don't want to be the test case