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

Revoking of SACF rifles & New Legislation (thread banned users in first post)

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: Semi Auto Rifles contd.

Thread banned users:

jb88

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cass

All covid/mask talk moved to Off Topic thread.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just got to look at the many cases of them abusing their powers under COVID regulations to see that in action.:mad:

Read that again, slowly.

They have the powers granted to them. I'm not arguing that you're wrong, nor am I saying there is rampant abuse, but you even said it, they are working within the powers granted to them.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Would say that is a pretty good example and attitude of a solo run and interperting the law as he saw fit.

Interpreting, but not implementing.

The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?

Attempted, next.

Certainly, they are...

There ya go, then.

But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change.

Only supporting my point.

Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a public consultation?

I wasn't discussing public consultation.

Not AGS fault if it is badly and vaguely worded,but bad for us ,as it can be left open to interpretation by a police force,and be decided on by a learned judge

.
This is exactly what I've been saying, checks and balances.

Not to the point where we have utterly childish and "We'll get ya no matter what!" type retaliation as we saw in 2016 when we had the desperate and total gun grab.That blew up spectacularly in their faces,

Again, a failed attempt because they cannot legislate and the courts/law will prevent them doing otherwise (doing, not trying).

..Why are they trying to fix it?

Because its their job to. Even in America, where they have a constitutional right to firearms, they still get crap and its up tot he courts to decide.

Cass

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

So while we do have a system of checks and balances, it is far from foolproof, or even adequate in a lot of cases.

I'm not arguing its perfect, but as you said it exists.

yubabill

tudderone wrote: »

Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.

Actually, that's the law - AGS cannot advocate for legislation. I pointed this out in some detail in my submission to Dept Justice, who swept it under the carpet.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Nor can AGS.

" I firmly belive no civilian should have access to such weapons,as they are much too dangerous and should be only possessed by trained Garda and military personnel,therefore I would not license Mr .... firearms in my district"
Paraphrasing CS J Kerin [ Retired]in the witness box Tralee DC 2009 [?]

Would say that is a pretty good example and attitude of a solo run and interperting the law as he saw fit.

Nor can AGS.

The attempted blanket ban on CF handguns in 2010?

As it is here, and more importantly where do you think the information comes from? As I asked above do you really think any police force is NOT consulted before legislation is drafted?

Certainly, they are...But theirs is NOT the final word on everything to do with a proposed legislation change. Here them and the DOJ it seemingly is...They might give us a pretence of consultation as required by law in Ireland on any topic affecting a group in the public arena,but the decisions are already made,I believe,behind closed doors...Have you ever seen any major changes to proposed core legislation after a public consultation?

Lets not paint Germany, or any country, as the land of Unicorn farts and fairy dust. Every police force will enforce the law as they see fit, and the courts will decide if their actions are legal or not. Same as here.

They might do that in some 3rd world dictatorship shthole. Here its enforcing by the letter of the law,as it is written and agreed on in the Dail and Senad. Not AGS fault if it is badly and vaguely worded,but bad for us ,as it can be left open to interpretation by a police force,and be decided on by a learned judge.

We deal with AGS in a singular issue (firearms) and our viewpoints are always going to be at odds with AGS'. There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

Not to the point where we have utterly childish and "We'll get ya no matter what!" type retaliation as we saw in 2016 when we had the desperate and total gun grab.That blew up spectacularly in their faces, because the architect of the failed handgun cases was on short notice for his incompetence and lashed out in desperation after being wiped out in Limerick DC,and seeing the court coast clause being used. It was "strange" that the chief Garda ballistics officer"retired" after that Dail public inquiry...
Any other force would have said with those decisions "Ok fair cop! The courts say otherwise.We'll get ya next time!"

And get on with life,but even here we see again a possibility that this is coming from, yet again,possibly the AGS? If it ain't broke...Why are they trying to fix it?

otmmyboy2

Cass wrote: »

There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

Even if the potential for cost incurred is significantly higher than it should be, to appeal a potentially unlawful or excessive decision.

I do think that AGS can make up the law in some cases.
IE they have been given excessive leeway in licencing decisions, which as you noted have often lead to court.
Both in granting licences and the conditions attached to same.

However said court, in it's current format, is rather unfairly biased towards those with the means to fight such cases.

I think to significantly make the system fairer all discretion should be removed from AGS in regards to firearms licencing(no more fiefdoms), and/or the recourse to court should be freely available(and covered by grants/or even free) to everyone who wishes to appeal a decision by AGS regarding licencing.

So while we do have a system of checks and balances, it is far from foolproof, or even adequate in a lot of cases.

How many people here would have taken their S/CS to court over applications if there was no question of means?
I certainly would have, several of them :P

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But they certainly cannot do solo runs

Nor can AGS.

,or deciding for themselves what the law is on anything.

Nor can AGS.

Its up to the legislators to legislate on the info given

As it is here, and more importantly where do you think the information comes from? As I asked above do you really think any police force is NOT consulted before legislation is drafted?

, not for every Komisar to decide how he wants to interpret it.

Lets not paint Germany, or any country, as the land of Unicorn farts and fairy dust. Every police force will enforce the law as they see fit, and the courts will decide if their actions are legal or not. Same as here.

We deal with AGS in a singular issue (firearms) and our viewpoints are always going to be at odds with AGS'. There will be conflict and every victory in court, on the shooter's behalf, show that the system of checks and balances works.

Grizzly 45

tonysopprano wrote: »

Same as they tried in EU, but that failed so they went after magazines, S]S]and when that failed[S[/S Succeeded they went after lead ammo.

Never ending battle (excuse the pun)

They left it open to member states on how to interpret the mag ban.We LOST that one here,as did pretty much most of Europe.:mad:

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Minister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

While pulling the hot Garda chestnuts out of the fire of 1million faked drunk driver tests.,A dodgy chief and assistant chief commissioner being possibly on the take., Arresting a sitting TD on her way home from the Dail for possible DUI. The Templemore brotherhood closing ranks and going into OMERTA mode.
The entire forces morale being in their boots. with the Garda Authority starting to sniff around as well.
It going public from the High Court that Garda chief Supers had "retired" for mucking about with peoples firearms applications would have destroyed the public trust in the force completely.

So this was along with the promise of the Firearms Arbitration Authority being set up a political noisemaker, that she knew she wouldn't have to deal with There was obviously a fear of a "surge" of applications for CFSA that so far hasn't emerged since this has been suggested, and quite frankly I can't see happening either,as they aren't everyone's cuppa tea.

The telling information will be to see exactly how many new licenses for these types of rifles have been issued post 2015/17 until the present day. Which would give us a good idea of whether this is a problem or not, and to also point out that how are these a problem that needs dealing with as they are what....0.00000001% of licensed firearms in the ROI and have ASFIK been NEVER used in a crime here either?

There is a lot of the UK MARS/Lever release controversy similarity here too.
Small amounts of a particular firearm,that is never used in a crime,but displeases those in power,so the best way is to legislate it out of existence and pay the owners a trifling sum...Except for the UK Home office grossly underestimating the buyback figure, that a 100k would sort it all out...It is now running in compensation cases at over 2 million Sterling I belive!!!

Just something the DOJ might have to keep in mind too.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

I have no idea about the German system, but that still seems like civilians do the admin, but require the police to do the actual legal stuff. Does anyone believe that the head of the German police (or various heads of the different States/counties) don't have input into what happens in their area?

They can point out possible problems[like maybe a rise in neo nazis or ANTIFA types acquiring possession to carry in public blank firing pistols]. But they certainly cannot do solo runs,or deciding for themselves what the law is on anything.Its up to the legislators to legislate on the info given, not for every Komisar to decide how he wants to interpret it.
Their job is a background check for any criminality and to collate info with the German secret services to see if the applicant is a good citizen and not supporting subversive groups,or a "Reich burger" and that they have done the relevant tests and whatnot,and to issue export permits and do basically our DOJ C4 sections job on a regional level. Thats where the German police involvement ends with civilian firearms.

Cass

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this sort of "pre-prohibition" exempting the state from paying compensation for the property they are potentially revoking permission to use?.

They done it, on a much shorter time frame/scale, with pistols. Anyone that licensed a CF pistol between November 2008 and June 2009 would have faced the same problem (license revoked).

If you mean in other aspects of law (outside of firearms), I've no idea.

Seems a tad shaky to me

Shaky, not so much, but unfair, absolutely. Why have laws when you can ban something via non existent/ghost bans? The reason this will be much worse than the pistols is the time frame. 6years this September since the original statement and so much has changed since then.

As I said above anyone with a license after the statement date, and assuming any actual legislation is drafted, will have a strong case for keeping their firearm regardless due to the unfair and possibly illegal length of time between the statement and legislation. IOW unlike the pistol ban this is a strong case for anyone wanting to go to court to fight it. I can perhaps see, if legislation is brought in, an exemption being made with a new date rather than the original one.

Cass

tudderone wrote: »

Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

AGS have to and should have input into laws. How many criminal justice acts, road traffic acts, etc. were drafted because AGS saw loopholes, problems with enforcement or simply non existent laws for acts that were, by every standard, *criminal?

In this instance we don't like it, and rightly so, but we cannot argue they should have no input in one instance then complain when their hands are tied in another (non shooting/firearm) related issue.

As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.

I have no idea about the German system, but that still seems like civilians do the admin, but require the police to do the actual legal stuff. Does anyone believe that the head of the German police (or various heads of the different States/counties) don't have input into what happens in their area?

* I use the term criminal to cover all aspects of anti social, criminality, and other violations of common good.

otmmyboy2

Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for this sort of "pre-prohibition" exempting the state from paying compensation for the property they are potentially revoking permission to use?

Seems a tad shaky to me.

tudderone

yubabill wrote: »

My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Mnister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

Sorry but why ? The AGS are public servants who follow the laws as drafted by the dail. They should stick to enforcing the laws of the land, not be making up laws and reg's they would like to enforce.

As said before, the German firearms licencing system is the way to go. The police only do background checks, the rest of the application is done by a civilian office.

Cass

Completely possible and believable. However they account for approx. 0.07% of the total firearm licensed so not even close to being near proliferation. It was simply a case of they were not wanted (SA/CF rifles) in the state, and having "got rid" of CF pistols this was they're next target.

The last number I got was 167. That was a few years back so it may have grown, but at the time and if she really wanted to it would have cost the exchequer about €250,000 to compensate and ban all SA licensed and the matter would be moot now.

yubabill

Cass wrote: »

Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.

She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

Who knows?

I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?

My impression at the time was that the Garda Commissioner made an argument around the possible future proliferation of CF SA rifles.

It came out that there were 150 or 160 such rifles in the state and the Mnister had to do something to placate AGS while facing the arguments put forward by an unusually united shooting community.

tonysopprano

Same as they tried in EU, but that failed so they went after magazines, and when that failed they went after lead ammo. Never ending battle (excuse the pun)

Cass

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

I’m a little bit confused about that, you said that they wouldn’t have to pay compensation if they revoked CF SA issued after 15th September 2015....

Correct.

........ but she would if there was an outright ban on licenses (not possession as you said).

Outright ban meaning all SA licenses, both pre and post 2015, but only compensate those pre 2015. Anyone after 2015, not so much (iow not at all).

Surely then if she revoked licenses issued after 2015 she would have to pay compensation?

Nope.

The statement announced her intention to cap (illegal) and study the number of these firearms, but went on to say any person who licenses one of these guns after Sept 2015, that their license will stand revoked.

This goes back to what I said above about a "warning" (my words, not her). The statement made clear that if/when legislation comes in any firearm (of the type mentioned) licensed after the date would automatically be revoked. So anyone that licensed one after that date "took the risk" that it wouldn't happen, that they might be able to keep it, or whichever way you wish to label it. IOW you were "warned" not to get one, you did because the law allows it and there is no ban, but now (pretend new legislation was introduced today) there is legislation and its retrospective to the date of the Dáil statement so the license stands revoked.

It should be pointed out that the gun is still your property and while you won't be able to possess/use it you can store it to fight the matter in court or sell it on.

The key point, exactly like with centrefire pistols, is the "cut off date". Anyone licensed after the date of the statement was given notice of the intent to revoke all such licenses so anyone that acquired one after the date "ignored" the notice and hence are not entitled to compensation.

This will be, if it ever happens, the 2008/2009 pistol ban, version 2.0

Munsterlad102

Cass wrote: »

Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.

She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

Who knows?

I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?

I’m a little bit confused about that, you said that they wouldn’t have to pay compensation if they revoked CF SA issued after 15th September 2015 but she would if there was an outright ban on licenses (not possession as you said). Surely then if she revoked licenses issued after 2015 she would have to pay compensation?

Cass

Munsterlad102 wrote: »

..... by banning licenses and revoking all the ones issued......

Banning them and revoking them is the same thing, but i get your point.

....... then why didn't she?

She would have to pay compensation to anyone before 2015. Its a small enough amount, at a rough guess about €400,000 (max), but to be seen to pay gun owners money would not go down well, or she just doesn't want to knowing it'll die by attrition like C/F pistols over time.

Who knows?

I mean why do this at all? Simple. The then Minister wanted the headlines for "taking guns off the streets" and this was in the same time as some high profile mass casualty events, so like the pistol ban they reacted for the virtue signaling effect. I mean not one mass shooting like those in America, Norway, New Zealand, etc. in the history of the state, and with about 200 firearm owners of these types of guns what exactly are they trying to prevent?

Munsterlad102

Cass wrote: »

There is a difference between licensing something to owning it (possession vs ownership). Its why back in 2015 she stopped dead after the statement because she said that she could just ban them, but after legal advice was told she would have to compensate anyone from whom she took their property off.

Just another thought, if the minister could have effectively banned CF SA by banning licenses and revoking all the ones issued, then why didn't she?

tudderone

Cass wrote: »

My comparison was to highlight the difficulty, and to a degree the absurdity, of such a long delay between statement and enactment of any possible legislation. Key points I made in relation to the delay were:

This is the Irish political class, absurdity is not that absurd here, in fact its normality.

Grizzly 45

jb88 wrote: »

Its like this, either they have traceability over the firearms like they do now or we have something like the pistols fiasco where so many were lost in fishing accidents it became a joke.

If you were the Gardai which would you prefer, knowing where they are and who has them or that they were "lost". I think behind closed doors they learned from that.

In your opinion JB, could this be a precursor to pending or drawing up legislation?
Would make sense to know how much there is of anything before you try and legislate on it?

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

Comparing 7 months to almost 7 years? Come on now. ???

You haven't read my posts. My comparison was to highlight the difficulty, and to a degree the absurdity, of such a long delay between statement and enactment of any possible legislation. Key points I made in relation to the delay were:

Cass wrote:

6 years and not a hint of actual legislation means it could run for at least another year (if they started working on it now) or even more, meaning they expected people to adhere to a non existent "ban" for over 7 years!

Cass wrote:

That would be very hard case to argue for in court (on the Government's side/end).

Cass wrote:

While the onus is on the licensee to know the type of gun and license they require how are they expected to find an obscure, and very short, statement by the Minister from 6+ years ago (who is not even Minister now, nor part of the same Government).

Cass wrote: »

If any such legislation were to come in I'd suspect, and its only guess work, that anyone with a license after 2015 would have a decent shot at keeping their firearm due to the severe length of time between the Dáil statement and the creation/enactment of any legislation. When this happened with pistols there was about 7 months between statement and legislation, but with these we're at year number 6 and counting.

jb88 wrote:

Its not happening any time soon.

Never said it was. Not once. Only discussing the possibilities or probabilities if it were to come in.

jb88 wrote:

When there is a distinct lack of traceability outside of private ownership, its going to be even more difficult.

Not sure of your point here.

Are you saying they won't know how many guns are in the country and who has them?

jb88 wrote:

Even the best RFDs are not amazing with records, thats part of the problem.

What problem? RFD and their stock is only a small part of this, its these type of firearms being owned and license by people is what they intend to address.

jb88 wrote:

Great for selling and you purchasing firearms and ammo and thats the only side we joe public see and care about really.

Record keeping is separate to the issue of these firearms being licensed, imo.

jb88

tudderone wrote: »

If its like the pistols the oireachtas doesn't have anything to do with it. The minister signs a S.I. and thats the cf semi's gone, and no one in the dail is going to be hopping mad over it, quite the reverse

Its like this, eithier they have traceability over the firearms like they do now or we have something like the pistols fiasco where so many were lost in fishing accidents it became a joke.

If you were the Gardai which would you prefer, knowing where they are and who has them or that they were "lost". I think behind closed doors they learned from that.

jb88

Cass wrote: »

If new legislation were enacted with the purpose of banning/prohibiting the licensing of semi-auto centrefire rifles the legislation (the new one/act) could be backdated to the date of the statement of intent the Minister made. This is what happened with pistols (C/F). The statement was made on November 18th 2008 and the legislation signed in June 2009, but anyone with a new license between November 2008 and June 2009 lost theirs (or at least would if any were issued).

Comparing 7 months to almost 7 years? Come on now. ???

Its not happening any time soon. If it was Id be living in every TD in the districts ear.?

When there is a distinct lack of traceability outside of private ownership, its going to be even more difficult.

Even the best RFDs are not amazing with records, thats part of the problem.
Great for selling and you purchasing firearms and ammo and thats the only side we joe public see and care about really.

Uinseann_16

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ah now...Have you seen those deadly Chinese "assault catapults" easily obtained on WISH.com.Or we just ask Herr Georg Sprave of the Slingshot channel to construct something that goes around Irish catapult legislation. We can then show them its features..:D

I read that last line his his voice chuckle and all

Grizzly 45

meathstevie wrote: »

Given the success of the center fire pistol ban and the absolute non existence of gangsters with pistols since I think everything except catapults and spudguns should be banned.

ah now...Have you seen those deadly Chinese "assault catapults" easily obtained on WISH.com.Or we just ask Herr Georg Sprave of the Slingshot channel to construct something that goes around Irish catapult legislation. We can then show them its features..:D

Grizzly 45

Except when they get a bill for this property they are confiscating. That's why they had to grandfather the CF pistols that were pre Nov 2008 licensed.
I think they go this grandfathering route in cases like this, because if they pay compensation for these items,it might open a floodgate of other claims on different cases here in the ROI, and it becomes a precedent.

Also,they might want to look at the MARS/lever release story in the UK... It was estimated at 100k tops in compensation.The bill is now over 1.5 million apparently... Just something to keep in mind here.