Cass wrote: » Nothing in the Commissioner's guidelines has any legal standing, realistically. .... The Garda Commissioner does not legislate.
Cass wrote: » At least 5 others on this thread have restricted licenses/firearms. Multiple licenses if you count them either simultaneously or consecutively over the years. That is not this thread.And you'd know this from the how many restricted firearms you've owned/licensed. After all that is what you are claiming! An argument from authority. In other words the higher the number of licenses/firearms the more knowledge and respect that person should receive? So based on that principle i'll ask again, how many have you that you can make the claim that jb88 has every right to? As have at least 5 others on this thread. Absolutely they should find it and read it. Its good information. By the way here is a link for anyone looking for that thread. They are in the context of this thread. I don't care how many restricted licenses/firearms he has applied for or gotten. Its simply not germane to the topic. The topic has mutated from those using one to the ability to apply, not the amount of times or even the process. Not accusing, stating. To accuse someone is to level a claim of wrongdoing. Patting yourself on the back is not a maleficence, but for the purpose of this thread irrelevant.
Correct, however, coming from a H&S/Risk Management background (CMIOSH) with lots of legislation, anytime an approved Guideline/Code of Practice/Best Practice or similar such document is used and accepted, it get quasi legal standing. Its not legislation per-se under the eyes of the law, nor should it be but by being accepted and used, it becomes a semi legal stick to ensure compliance. If such document is used incorrectly and abused and with everyone interpreting it differently, them mayhem will occur.
Rows Grower wrote: » To use your word of the day, irrelevant. Actually, utterly irrelevant.
This is a forum for discussion, it's for all to contribute if they so wish.
tonysopprano wrote: » . Issuing persons and applicants alike should be mindful that, on 18th September 2015, the Minister for Justice and Equality announced that any new restricted firearm certificates for centre fire semi-automatic rifles, granted between that date and the enactment of proposed legislation banning the future licensing of these types of firearms, shall stand revoked.https://www.garda.ie/en/about-us/online-services/firearms-licensing/commissioner-s-guidelines-2018.pdf
tudderone wrote: » Yes there was, the chief super said if i wanted it, go to court for it. As you might remember back in 08, there was a crash and loads of people lost their jobs, i was one of them. Spending thousands on a court case, made as much sense back then as putting a deposit on a new Rolls Royce.
tudderone wrote: » I know where it is, i could apply for it again, but the less contact i have with Gardai, the better.
JP22 wrote: » Correct, however, coming from a H&S/Risk Management background (CMIOSH) with lots of legislation, anytime an approved Guideline/Code of Practice/Best Practice or similar such document is used and accepted, it get quasi legal standing. Its not legislation per-se under the eyes of the law, nor should it be but by being accepted and used, it becomes a semi legal stick to ensure compliance. If such document is used incorrectly and abused and with everyone interpreting it differently, them mayhem will occur.
BattleCorp wrote: » The Commissioner's guidelines isn't viewed as having quasi-legal standing by the courts in the same fashion as H&S Guidelines/Codes of Practice you mentioned above so I guess we can be thankful for that.
smmember20 wrote: » So I don't get it, did you have a certificte before 2008 or not, was it that you applied and they turned you down, the only point I am making is that if you had a certificate before 2008 you can make application today under the current legislation and 95% you will be granted it as long as you fulfil the restricted firearms criteria the most important one being you had it before 2008. From you post it seems like you lost the Sig to the value of 3K?
otmmyboy2 wrote: » Indeed, they are instead interpreted as gospel when it suits the S/CS, and a guideline otherwise. :P Case in point, the CS said the 1000 rounds for target shooting was - a guideline I can choose not to follow. Few minutes later, still the CS - the commissioners guidelines are what I go by, no exceptions. :rolleyes: Sometimes it is comic to hear them, but I really wish those interviews were recorded. :P
BattleCorp wrote: » The fact that we have a postcode lottery when it comes to firearms licencing means that the guidelines aren't taken as gospel. Some Gardai interpret it differently, and sometimes incorrectly.
otmmyboy2 wrote: » Indeed. I do wonder whether the licencing system will ever be centralised, like was talked about years ago. Not that that would necessarily make it better that is, but presumably more consistent at the very least. :rolleyes:
jb88 wrote: » It seems when objective views on topics by some more experienced than others are not allowed they are pulled.
Constructive discourse and knowledge based information seem to be very few and far between in these forums.
BattleCorp wrote: » It would be much better if it was centralised.Even as is, the current system could be improved through the use of technology. Renewals and non-first time applications should be done online. This would save the Gardai having to type what we have written into the computer and it would also be a record of the application having been made. It would also mean that it's much less likely for an application going missing in the post/behind the filing cabinet etc.
tudderone wrote: » Yes, as with much else we can learn much from abroad. I believe in many European countries, Germany for instance, the police provide a background check and thats it. The application is processed by a centralised office, staffed by civilians and is all far more efficient. The trouble is here, the guards don't want to do licencing, but they don't want anyone else to do it either.
otmmyboy2 wrote: » I no exceptions. :rolleyes: Sometimes it is comic to hear them, but I really wish those interviews were recorded. :P
Grizzly 45 wrote: » NOTHING stopping you from requesting such...As it is a formal interview and it is commonly accepted practise in the world of law and commerce to openly record business meetings, and you are doing it for the exact same reason AGS do it themselves down in the dungeon...Er ...interview rooms. So long as both /all parties consent, and if requested you provide a copy of the interview tape and /or transcript as well. It also keeps things civil and professional and people in mind their P's and Q's. So they cant try and badger you into a reaction,to say you are unsuitable to be licensed.
tudderone wrote: » Don't mind tape recorders, i'd be turning up with a solicitor. The way i was treated more than once by the gits, its the tack i would take.
BSA International wrote: » Been there myself. A buddy advised Super he was bringing a solicitor with him and Super refused to meet him. So he went alone. When buddy went in to the meeting there was the Super and a Sergeant on other side of table ......
tudderone wrote: » Legal to do here or not ? You are not actually shooting while moving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWrVU2DSJHU
otmmyboy2 wrote: » Cannot see the problem. Not vastly different from the PRS comps as far as movement goes.
