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

Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Sparks

From the Department of Justice's website comes the following:

Comments are invited on Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Bill, 2004 concerning the amendment of section 4 of the Firearms Act, 1925. Comments can be emailed to the following address:
firearms_CJB2004@justice.ie

Click on the following link to view the Bill on the Oireachtas website:
Criminal Justice Bill 2004

These amendments to the Firearms Acts will decide what firearms we can and cannot hold licences for, at least for the next few years. Polite responses to this email address would be of significant worth (in that if there are none sent, the DoJELR may state that noone objected to any amendments).

The problem is that these amendments have not been announced yet, apart from the one concerning secure storage being a mandatory prerequisite for being granted a licence; but we are as sure as is possible given the situation, that we will see classes and calibres of firearms listed in the amendments as being illegal to licence.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Answer; the same way you deal with the rubbish tip that has been polluting our ground water and well for the last 30 years

Won't work. The law doesn't allow for the illegal acts of another to be a defence for you.

And there is also a saying"The law is an ass".

There is, and it's right, and it's also irrelevant. So long as they are the state, and have the Gardai and ERU and Army, you play by the rules of the state. Let me assure you CG, in the wildly unlikely case that you don't know, very, very few would support you breaking the law when they could lose so much so easily as a result, especially when not all avenues are yet explored.

What?Gardai making up the law as they see fit???Nothing new there.

There is now - because now, their "seeing fit" will be called "guidelines" and will have legal authority behind them and as such won't be challangable in court (at least not with any ease or as good a chance of a ruling in your favour!).

Can you imagine what will happen to your camcorder if you tried filming a Garda raid on your property??I think you would require rectal surgery to remove your camcorder after a garda pushed it up there quite forcefully.

So you'll have medical proof of assault and of a search being carried out oppressively, both of which are illegal. And here was me thinking you'd go to any lengths to stop an illegal search!

There is nothing in law that says you cannot sneak up on somone to challange them

Indeed. There is, however, much law to say that you cannot sneak up on someone and render them unable to reply to such a challange.

Once he claims to be who he is,he can hand out his ID ,thumb and little finger,and he can stay hands where I can see them

And if he's doing so because you're pointing a firearm at him, then you're now guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. CG, I'm starting to wonder - you didn't speak to your local superintendent like this when applying for your pistol, did you?

Remember he is the one caught tresspassing in suspicious circumstances in the middle of the night

He's not trespassing though, he's acting under a legal duty imposed on him by the Minister for Justice...

,and if he is "assaulted" perish the thought,who is to say he didnt fall down that rickety ladder in the barn,and I found him there unconcious?

Him, when he wakes up.
Seriously CG, would you mind stopping this please? You're giving all of us a bad name.

Plus under owners and occupiers liability act,I can disclaim any responsibility for him injuring himself as he came uninvited onto the property.

Does that act exempt you from an injury caused to a fireman responding to an alarm call? Or to a garda serving a warrant?

So you are saying that they will have more power than the Gardai or revenue and customs men.

YES.
Do you now see why this has me so annoyed?

That should make life most intresting in Ireland then even for the non shooting public.

Which is why I think we could get support to get rid of Section 4b from the non-shooters!

civdef

And yet again this thread turns into a quote-fest.

Sparks

And it's worrying me that people aren't reading the thread as it's so long as well civ, but what else can you do? Replies without quotes are confusing as to context; and we gathered all the CJB stuff in here to prevent the thread from splitting into twenty different ones!

Quillo

I recently bought a second rimfire rifle and was told that the permissions to shoot that had for decades been acceptable for the first rifle were no longer acceptable as, with two guns, I'd need 200 acres to shoot over (my permission covered about 30 acres). I was basically told I had to join a club and show evidence of insurance through that club (my existing personal shooting insurance wasn't acceptable). All very polite and nothing in writing of course.... but it really was a take it or leave situation (or go down the legal route). So I joined the local club - I have no idea where they shoot and will probably never shoot on their lands/range, but my firearms officer is happy !

It seems to me that this whole "range" thing is a concerted effort to ban shooting on private land as it appears to allow the term to be applied to any piece of private where "target" shooting takes place (What constitutes a target ?).

The only positive thing I can see in all this mess is that they may well have gone too far in this and it might get the normally gun-shy civil liberties constituency mobilised.

Sparks

All very polite and nothing in writing of course.... but it really was a take it or leave situation

Nothing wrong with requesting the reasons in writing politely - and at that point, with a signature and paper trail required, most Gardai would check with further up the chain and discover that they were mistaken.

What constitutes a target ?

There's no definition in the Acts or the Bill...

Quillo

Sparks wrote:

Nothing wrong with requesting the reasons in writing politely - and at that point, with a signature and paper trail required, most Gardai would check with further up the chain and discover that they were mistaken....

Ah....

But here is where they have us divided (and all but conquered). I played along believing it was quicker and easier to join the club as "suggested". Had I been more knowledgeable I may well have confidently and politely done as you suggest.

But until I came across this forum I had only the most basic idea of what law applied to firearms. My only interaction with the Gardai was to send them an annual FAC renewal and, more recently, to allow them inspect my gunsafe.

(And, like most ordinary law abiding folk, I must admit to being slightly intimadated standing in a Garda station being told by a Garda that this is the way it is...... )

Sparks

Letter going off to Senator Patrick Moylan tonight:

Dear Senator Moylan

Like yourself, I am a shooter. Though our disciplines differ, I'm asking you to intercede on behalf of all shooters throughout the country over the debacle that the Criminal Justice Bill amendments to the Firearms Act have become, because not only do they threaten to eridicate our sport, they also threaten the civil liberties of every non-shooter as well.

There is quite literally a litany of problems with the Bill in its current form as amended by the Dail Select Committee. Starting with that which affects most, is Section 4B. It proposes to create the role of Firearms Range Inspectors. On the face of things, this is reasonable; but the Bill is so badly drafted that the potential for abuse is unbelievable. Most directly impinging on non-shooters is section 4B(4), which states:

(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.

What can we take from this, only that these people, who need not be Gardai, Department of Justice personnel, or even firearms experts; and who need not have any training in inspection; may go anywhere at any time and search any premises, dwelling, vehicle or land without needing any specific search warrant, nor needing to give notice to the occupant? The bill does state “with reasonable cause”, but it gives no standard by which this is to be judged, nor does it say when or to whom this cause is to be divulged, nor does it say to whom or how often these inspectors must answer for state oversight. It does not even require that these Range Inspectors be free from a criminal record!

This point becomes even more laboured when you consider that there is no definition of what a range actually is. Does it mean a dedicated range like Courtlough or Wilkinstown? Or does it include even a hunter zeroing his rifle on his own private land for the start of the hunting season? There are no standards set in the bill as to what a range must conform to; these are all to be set out by the Minister after the Bill is enacted, and in this, not only are there are no checks and balances to prevent oppresive rulings by the Minister without parlimentary oversight; there are also no mechanisms for resolving conflicts between Department of Justice requirements and County Council planning permission requirements.

In fact, if enacted today, this Bill would create two conflicting legal definitions of the very term “Firearm”, one from the 1990 Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and one from the Bill itself!

There are more problems; The newly proposed Firearms Training Certificate, which interest groups wanted to have made available from age 12 onwards for airguns (in order to be able to compete with other nations in the Olympics), but which was pushed to age 14; has now been pushed to age 16 – at which point the applicant can get a full licence anyway. This takes safety out of the legislation and makes it as purely optional as taking advanced driver training after passing your driving licence; and destroys our hopes of being able to train our junior olympic shooters (who already have a reputation for excellence, having won medals in the British Open Championships for several years running) to the standard needed to bring World Cup medals into reach. It, in fact, makes a mockery of the entire concept of the Training Certificate.

There is also no definition of “target”, which means that clay pigeon shooters are in a gray area, as Section 4(2)(e) now reads:

(e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club

and so any clay pigeon shooter who is not a member of a rifle or pistol club could come into conflict with the legislation. There are similar lacks of consideration for clay pigeon shooters when dealing with clay pigeon ranges like Courtlough.

According to section 4(2)(f), we are required now to prove that we are of sound mental health! How can anyone prove this without months of observation by a clinical psychologist? And how can their ruling apply if the applicant's environment changes? So how can we possibly comply with this new requirement? Section 4(1) prohibits a certificate being granted unless the issuing person is sure that the applicant “will continue to comply with (the conditions) during the currency of the certificate”. How can any person be sure that the applicant will not undergo serious personal stress during the currency of the certificate and suffer a breakdown as a result? A strict interpretation of the law would prohibit the issuing of any certificates!

We are also required now to give prior permission for our medical records to be examined by the Gardai by section 4(3)(c) – though we won't be notified if this is done, nor will we have any assurances as to confidentiality, nor will we know precisely whom has seen our records, which are often hard enough for ourselves to get access to!

We are also now to give character references! When did we become by implication disreputable people? In fact, the entire Bill appears to have been drafted with the unstated axiom that shooters are disreputable, irresponsible people with criminal tendencies! And how will applicants from outside the state provide viable character references? And if they need not, why must we?

We must prove competence with the firearm being applied for. How are we to do this? Forget momentarily that an applicant not only will not have the firearm as yet, and has no legal way to gain this competence; what metrics and standards are being used to determine competence? Nothing is defined in the bill! Who sets these standards and metrics is not even defined!

Senator, when I say that I could continue this letter for many more pages, I am not exaggerating. The current Criminal Justice Bill, as amended in Committee, is frightening. It contains more potential for oppressive abuse than any law should. I urge you sir, oppose this in the Committee. Point out the problems with the Bill, and let it be amended to resolve them.

Thank you,

Sparks

Quillo wrote:

But here is where they have us divided (and all but conquered). I played along believing it was quicker and easier to join the club as "suggested". Had I been more knowledgeable I may well have confidently and politely done as you suggest.
But until I came across this forum I had only the most basic idea of what law applied to firearms. My only interaction with the Gardai was to send them an annual FAC renewal and, more recently, to allow them inspect my gunsafe.

That's a good reason to produce that "your shooting rights" booklet and distribute it to every person on the pulse list who owns a firearm if I ever heard one!

(And, like most ordinary law abiding folk, I must admit to being slightly intimadated standing in a Garda station being told by a Garda that this is the way it is...... )

True, but you simply have to relax in that situation. The Gardai you encounter, by and large, are decent enough people. There are only a very few bad apples. Unfortunately, those few are very sour indeed

Sparks

And a letter to the Irish Times going out today as well:

The Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Dear Madam Editor

The Criminal Justice Bill 2004 has become a very scary piece of proposed legislation indeed. I am an Olympic target shooter and have been worried by the Bill's amending of the Firearms Act for some time as a natural result; but the current wording of the Bill will mean that even those who have nothing to do with the shooting sports will be affected by the Firearms Act.

The Bill creates the post of a Firearms Range Inspector. The idea was that all shooting ranges would be certified by firearms experts from an Garda Síochána or the Department of Justice for safety; but this is not what we now see in the Bill. The Firearms Range Inspector does not have to be a member of an Garda Síochána. Nor do they need to be Department of Justice personnel. Nor, in fact, need they be firearms experts; in fact they don't even have to worry about having a criminal record, according to the Bill. However, according to Section 4B(4), should they suspect “that any place is being used for rifle or pistol target shooting may enter and inspect it, at any time and without prior notice“. They need have no search warrant. They need not inform anyone ahead of time, and that seems to include the Gardai and the Department of Justice as well as the occupant concerned. There are no rules as to how this inspection must be carried out. And since neither the Firearms Act nor the new Bill define what a shooting range is, or even what a target is, how can anyone say that the inspection did or didn't find what it was looking for? Indeed, nowhere in the Bill is it stated to whom these inspectors will report, or when, or how.

It would appear that these inspectors will be able to inspect any premises, any dwelling, any vehicle, any aircraft, belonging to anyone – be they olympic target shooter, or someone who's never even seen a firearm – all without any of the safeguards to our civil liberties that are present when Gardai or Customs Officers serve conventional search warrants.

Given the severity of abuse that could result from this one single section in a Bill that virtually rewrites the entire Firearms Act, I suppose the fact that the Bill creates two conflicting definitions of what a “firearm” actually is should be only a small footnote...

Thank you,

Sparks

A quick summary of the problems we've seen so far with the CJB:

Section 1
First off the bat, there are two conflicting definitions of the word “firearm”. To me, that’s pretty serious. “Prohibited weapon” is also defined twice, but at least it’s with the same definition, which is just tautological.

Section 2a
This is the new Firearms Training Certificate - originally intended to let under-16s train for target shooting legally. Only now, the age limit for this certificate has been raised to 16 - at which age you can get a full certificate anyway, so why bother? In fact, it gets better - if you go for a training certificate at age 16-18, you have to supply parental permission in writing - which isn’t needed for a full certificate! So why get a Training Certificate? Well, the only reason I can think of is that you want to avoid all the new stuff in Section 4 indefinitely, as there’s nothing in Section 2a to say that an applicant for a Training Certificate has to fulfill any of the conditions in Section 4!

Section 2b
Ah, this is a doozy. Basicly, it says that for any firearms the Minister wants, he can force more hoops to be jumped through to get them, to the point where noone can get through the hoops, and it’s all legal and above board and can’t be challanged in court successfully. Two guesses what fullbore rifles and pistols will be declared restricted once this Bill is enacted?

Section 3a
Described as the “do anything you want” clause, this section empowers the Commissioner, or - according to Section 1 - any Garda at or over the rank of Superintendent that the Commissioner wants to let do so - can set out “guidelines” for how the act is enforced, and for any extra conditions that we have to fulfill to get our licences. No mechanism for appealing these of course, nor for ensuring that firearms experts are consulted first, nor even for ensuring that these guidelines are put in the public domain…

Section 4
Not just almost rewritten, this section has been rewritten completely. No longer a simple section with just three conditions to meet to get a certificate, now you have - count ‘em - nine conditions (or eleven for a restricted firearm); plus you have to furnish more information as the Gardai see fit, including character references, permission to check your medical records and proof of competence with the firearm.

Argh! Okay, first the information - how do tourists or those outside the state provide character references, and if they don’t have to, why do I? Why should the Gardai be able to see my medical records when for every other licence (driving, pilots, etc) that has a medical concern, I just take a test and either pass or fail? Who in the Gardai sees my records? The Commissioner? The Superintendent? The secretary? Are they returned to the doctor? Are copies kept if they are returned?

Now, the mandatory conditions. (a) through (c) are just the current conditons, and (d) is just secure storage, which most shooters will have anyway, if they’re in any way sensible - though what exactly “secure” means isn’t defined.

(e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,
What about clay pigeon shooters then? Or do you not need to be a member of a club for shooting at clay disks? If so, I predict a rise in the number of shooters shooting rifles and pistols at said disks…

(f) is of sound mental and psychiatric health,
Okay, I know I’m of sound psychiatric health, but how do I prove it? And not just right now, but also that I will be so for the entire duration of my certificate? Medically speaking, I’m told that that can’t be done - so then noone gets to have a certificate! Wonderful!

Oh, and for the record - are you feeling a bit blue during winter because of the short days and bad weather? Then you may have SAD, a kind of depression that 60% of us get - and therefore can’t have a firearms licence as you’re not of sound mental health…

I suppose I should be happy. Prior to committee stage, my dentist was qualified to testify to my mental health, according to the bill…

(i) complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate, including any such conditions to be complied with before a specified date as the issuing person considers necessary in the interests of public safety or security, and
Ah yes, the “do whatever the hell I want” clause. How wonderfully just and fair…

(j) in case the application is for a restricted firearm certificate—
(i) has a good and sufficient reason for requiring such a firearm, and
(ii) has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required.

Excuse me? “Weapon”? That’s the term for something used in a crime, not something you give out a licence for!

Section 4a
Here’s where it gets even more fun. Any shooting club or range that’s not authorised isn’t allowed to exist, basicly. Anyone shoots there, then both they and the operator of the range/club get fined anything up to €25,000 and go to jail for up to seven years. No, that’s not a misprint. You can go to jail for up to seven years for not having paperwork authorising something that the Bill doesn’t even define.

And if that authorisation is revoked and your rifle is in the club safe? It goes to the gardai lockup. Doesn’t matter that it’s not owned by the club.

Oh, and the authorisation can be set according to the competence of the people using the range - and from what we’ve heard, that’s a very, very, very likely thing to happen. By the way, how many newbies do you know who are competent from before their first shot? And yet, if they get a training licence for target shooting, they can only shoot on a range; but if they’re not competent they can’t shoot on that range. Lovely, isn’t it?

Section 4b
Sweet. Zombie. Jesus.
Okay, I know all the above only applies to shooters. But this little section applies to the entire nation. It creates the post of Firearms Range Inspector, and it then empowers this person - who doesn’t have to be a Garda, a civil servant working for the Department of Justice, or even a firearms expert - hell, they don’t even have to not be a criminal - to enter and search anywhere they want to, any time they want to, without a set warrant, in case they think there’s target shooting going on in that place, dwelling, vehicle, aircraft or hovercraft (no, I’m not making that one up). Want to search a house but don’t want that pesky wait for the warrant? Hark! Is that a target shooting noise I just heard! I must inspect the house! And goodbye to civil liberty safeguards that apply to Gardai and Customs officials!

Oh, and since neither what a range or a target is is defined in the Bill, who can say if the search did or did not succeed?

And that’s just from reviewing the first few sections. I’m half afraid to study further

Riggser

I am now more confused than I ever will be on this matter. I don't like it and if the government want to turn poeple off applying for a firearms license they are onto a winner here.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=Sparks]Won't work. The law doesn't allow for the illegal acts of another to be a defence for you.

No but it would be downright embarrasing ,the council claiming lead pollution,when there is asbestos,cadminium,lead and all the rest from their dump polluting the groundwater,and they are moaning about a few 22 bulletts.
They would be looking at a quicker lawsuit from the residents than I would.

SNIP of Sparks quote about State monolopy on violence

There is now - because now, their "seeing fit" will be called "guidelines" and will have legal authority behind them and as such won't be challangable in court (at least not with any ease or as good a chance of a ruling in your favour!).

So nothing new,guidelines=my opinion and Bias against issuing liscenses.

So you'll have medical proof of assault and of a search being carried out oppressively, both of which are illegal. And here was me thinking you'd go to any lengths to stop an illegal search!

Ah self inflicted,I have Garda Oaf,Fool and Dodgey to back me up Judge.We never touched the prisoner honestly.This is how it goes Sparks,ever wonder about deaths in cells in custody??

Indeed. There is, however, much law to say that you cannot sneak up on someone and render them unable to reply to such a challange.

Unless he is struck dumb,he can speak with his hands up.

And if he's doing so because you're pointing a firearm at him, then you're now guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. CG, I'm starting to wonder - you didn't speak to your local superintendent like this when applying for your pistol, did you?

No Sparks,because the super is never available to speak to anyone.And assault with a deadly weapon is unlikely to stick under the circumstances either.

He's not trespassing though, he's acting under a legal duty imposed on him by the Minister for Justice...

He was an unidentified individual acting in a susspicious manner on private property.

Him, when he wakes up.
Seriously CG, would you mind stopping this please? You're giving all of us a bad name.

PROVE IT !!! He fell down a dodgey ladder in the middle of the night.He came onto the property uninvited,He didnt announce himself and allowed me to make him aware of the dangers on the property.There is no responsibility on me.

And no Sparks I wont stop it because it is high time that you realise that there are always varying factors in every case,it is never cut and dried.

Does that act exempt you from an injury caused to a fireman responding to an alarm call? Or to a garda serving a warrant

YES
A fireman by profession expects that his job will put him in harms way as will a garda be expected to go into harms way.You are not responsible if the fireman has to cross your burning roof and it collapses.Nor can a Garda hold you responsible that if he crawls around your attic in a house search,he grips a live wire.

Look,we can argue this till judgement day.You want to belive that there is going to be this uber beaurcrat with godlike divne powers stalking the land.Fine,fine fine. Whatever.

Which is why I think we could get support to get rid of Section 4b from the non-shooters!

How???most people will not be intrested in this until it actually happens to them.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Unless he is struck dumb,he can speak with his hands up.

Point a gun at him to make him put his hands up, even if it's not a real gun, and it's assault with a deadly weapon. Against someone authorised by the Minister to be there.

He was an unidentified individual acting in a susspicious manner on private property.

Who was authorised by the Minister to be there, which you'd know the moment you challanged him to identify himself in accordance with the laws relating to self-defence and defence of property.

PROVE IT !!!

Unless he's dead, it's your testimony as a suspect in a firearms investigation against a warranted agent of the Minster for Justice who claims you assaulted him in the pursuit of his duty.

He came onto the property uninvited,He didnt announce himself and allowed me to make him aware of the dangers on the property.There is no responsibility on me.

Yes there is. He came onto the property with the authority to do so, was under no obligation to notify you, and you are by law required to not assault him. I won't say you'd definitely be jail-bound CG, but you most assuredly would be up to your neck in a pretty awful mess.

How???most people will not be intrested in this until it actually happens to them.

Trick here is not to try and get a bigger stick than the Minister is reaching for; it's to convince others that if he swings it at us, he's going to hit them as well because the stick's too big.

Sparks

So the Minister is currently appearing at the Committee Stage discussions. Here are the transcripts of the debate as they relate to us. He's back in again at 0930 on Wednesday, still discussing firearms act amendments. Some interesting quotes from the transcripts:

Mr. McDowell: I move amendment No. 101:
In page 25, before section 24, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
”PART 5
AMENDMENT OF FIREARMS ACTS
24.--In this Part ”Principal Act“ means the Firearms Act 1925.”.

Both amendments provide for the insertion of new definitions in section 1 of the Firearms Act 1925. Amendment No. 102 provides in some cases for the insertion of additional definitions in section 1(1) and, in others, for the substitution of other definitions. Deputy Jim O’Keeffe has tabled a number of amendments to my amendment, which propose the deletion of section 1(1), which provides for definitions, and its replacement with a new consolidated definitions subsection. He proposes the deletion of the definitions under the 1925 Act and their reinstatement together with new definitions I propose to insert. While I understand the Deputy’s wish to have a consolidated set of definitions for all the Firearms Acts, the difficulty with this approach is a number of the definitions under the 1925 Act, which he proposes to delete and reinstate, have been substantially amended in subsequent firearms legislation. For example, the definition of “firearm” in the 1925 Act was substantially extended over the years, particularly under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990, to include a range of weapons, including stun guns, crossbows and so on. The Deputy’s proposal would reinstate the older definition and, thus, exclude weapons that have been included under amending legislation and different statutes over the years.

The consolidation of all the definitions in the Firearms Acts would require substantial amendment to seven Acts between 1925 and 2000 and, therefore, the approach I have taken is to amend existing definitions where they can be readily consolidated. In this regard, having examined the Deputy’s amendments carefully and consulted the Parliamentary Counsel, I am satisfied the consolidation of the definition of “ammunition” proposed by the Deputy would not, unlike the “firearms” definition, have implications for other Firearms Acts. While I am opposed to the overall thrust of his amendments because of their implications for the other Firearms Acts, I am prepared to accept his consolidated definition of “ammunition” and I propose to table on Report Stage an amended definition of “ammunition” along the lines of his definition. The problem with his amendment is it is not complete. While I want to accept it, I cannot do so because it still leaves problems. However, his definition is preferable and I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to take account of the point he has made.

So basicly, we're going to see some fundamental definitions left unannounced until this goes back to the Dail...

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I would very much like the Minister to introduce a new consolidated firearms Bill, which would update all legislation in this area since 1925 and include the Minister’s new proposals, most of which I am in sympathy with, but my concern is that we are completing another addition to a patchwork quilt and we will make it more difficult for anybody who wishes to get up to speed on the Firearms Acts. It is important from the point of view of criminal law that people should know and be able to find out where they stand.
...
Mr. McDowell: ... Under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, all of the Firearms Acts are capable of being restated as a series of Acts in consolidated form. I intend to have the Department prepare a restatement of the Acts to ensure they are easy to follow. The amendments must fit into place to allow a person to pick up the text and easily understand the law.

I wonder if someone on the Minister's staff is reading boards.ie

Well, if they are, they might tell the Minister that he made a rather embarrassing mistake in his definitions to the Committee:

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: ... Will the Minister explain to me, as regards the original definition of “muzzle energy” what we are talking about and how the energy of a projectile is measured in joules?

...

Mr. McDowell: Joules are a metric measure of pressure used in meteorology as well as everywhere else.

...

Mr. McDowell: The imperial measure was foot pounds.

...

Mr. McDowell: I sometimes tell my sons about the tables and naggins, pecks, gills etc. which we had to learn at school and which are gone now.

...

Mr. McDowell: It is called muzzle velocity. A high velocity weapon and a low velocity weapon would be characterised by reference to the velocity of the pressure of the gases behind the projectile as it leaves the end of the barrel.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Point a gun at him to make him put his hands up, even if it's not a real gun, and it's assault with a deadly weapon. Against someone authorised by the Minister to be there.

Who was authorised by the Minister to be there, which you'd know the moment you challanged him to identify himself in accordance with the laws relating to self-defence and defence of property.

Good,then he can provide ID and explain what he was doing at 4am on private property.Acting in a suspicious manner,putting me in the fear of my life
.You still take the possible fact as a literal interpation of events

Unless he's dead, it's your testimony as a suspect in a firearms investigation against a warranted agent of the Minster for Justice who claims you assaulted him in the pursuit of his duty.

Again Sparks it ids auestion of proof.

Yes there is. He came onto the property with the authority to do so, was under no obligation to notify you, and you are by law required to not assault him. I won't say you'd definitely be jail-bound CG, but you most assuredly would be up to your neck in a pretty awful mess.

Contradiction in terms;He came onto the property with the authorithy to do so,at 4AM without any obligation of informing me.He chose then by doing so to ignore any dangers that might be present or to gain any information as to what hazards might be there.Are we now supposed to be awake 24/7 to inform people of a gubmit nature as to what hazards they might encounter when they come unannounced???GIMME A BREAK!!! Sorry Sparks that wont wash in any court of the land here.

Trick here is not to try and get a bigger stick than the Minister is reaching for; it's to convince others that if he swings it at us, he's going to hit them as well because the stick's too big.

And in practical terms that will be done how Sparks???How will you convince Joe&Jane non shooting Bloggs out there that a firearms act that they know nothing about or care less will grossly affect their civil liberties????
There is already a rake of civil liberty law infringements heading this way that have it written on them in bold type[Eg biometric passports,common area UK,Ireland ID cards,etc] and no one seems to give two hoots about that.So this??Let us know because if you pull this one off,we should see 90%of the Irish pouplation suddenly becoming pro gun.

civdef

I'm sure Messrs. Pascal and Newton are rolling in their graves

Sparks

Well, it seems to happen every time there's a debate on firearms law in the Dail/Seanad or Committee - the Seanad debate from 1963 on the '64 Act took a while to consider whether or not .22lr rounds should be banned because in The Day of the Jackal, the assassin used explosive-tipped .22lr bullets to try to kill De Gaulle - but, even allowing for that, you'd expect the Minister proposing the law to be far better briefed on the law.

civdef

If you want a laugh, have a look at the Seanad debates for the 1990 Firearms & Offensive Weapons Act.

17HMR

Seems to me that this Range Inspector thing is wide open to criminal abuse....

What better way to steal firearms than by showing up at areas were shooting regularly takes place, produce your RI ID and confiscate all the firearms in use.

At the absolute very least, if this ludicrous proposal gets enacted then the firearm owner should have the right to phone his/her local Garda Station to verify the RI's credentials before handing over a "lethal weapon" to a complete stranger on the basis of an official looking piece of paper

Sparks

It's even more confusing 17HMR, because as far as I can see, the Inspector has no powers of seizure - so they can search your home, claim to find evidence, but won't have the legal authority to seize it without a warrant, and so how can they ensure that those who are actaully breaking the law don't dispose of the evidence? So, even in cases where the law isn't being abused, it won't work!

17HMR

Jaysus....

Is it any wonder so many cases get tossed on technicalities when we have ministers proposing legislation like this ? And this minister comes from a legal background !

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Well, it seems to happen every time there's a debate on firearms law in the Dail/Seanad or Committee - the Seanad debate from 1963 on the '64 Act took a while to consider whether or not .22lr rounds should be banned because in The Day of the Jackal, the assassin used explosive-tipped .22lr bullets to try to kill De Gaulle - but, even allowing for that, you'd expect the Minister proposing the law to be far better briefed on the law.

Er,dont you mean the 1972 firearms [Temp custody] act ?The Day of the Jackal was first published in the Uk in 1971.
Still and all,it just shows with all this what kind of donkeys we elect somtimes to govern us.:rolleyes:

Clare gunner

17HMR wrote:

Jaysus....

Is it any wonder so many cases get tossed on technicalities when we have ministers proposing legislation like this ? And this minister comes from a legal background !

Ah,but he also no doubt could claim to be from a shooting backround as well.:eek: At the Easter Sunday 1916 memorial,didnt he claim to have been in the FCA,and then admitted to still having the FCA jacket at home?Hmmm,thought that was an offence as well??:rolleyes:

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Er,dont you mean the 1972 firearms [Temp custody] act ?The Day of the Jackal was first published in the Uk in 1971

Whoops, you're right - from the Seanad Archives for the 1971 Firearms Act debate:

Professor Kelly: ... Since the Seanad met last week, I inquired from a military friend and I am now told that there is definitely such a thing as a pistol of .22 calibre —I had suspected this, but I was not sure. Now I am definitely assured that there is such a pistol in existence and, at the risk of being told that I am making another party political point, I suggest to the Minister that this amendment would be innocuous. If the section in question were adapted as I suggest, it would leave within control rifled firearms of .22 calibre but of the size of pistols.

I have also been told by my military acquaintance that the modern .22 cartridge is a very different thing from the old-fashioned .22 cartridge and that, whereas the old one was non-lethal unless it caught you in a vital spot, the more modern .22 cartridges are charged with new explosives of a kind which very much increase their velocity and, presumably, the degree to which they fragment and scatter once they reach their target. Therefore, the lethal possibilities in .22 weapons are much greater than the Minister possibly realises.

...

Mr. O'Malley: Yes. Subject to what I have to say now, I am prepared to accept the principle of this amendment. Although we are well aware that there are .22 pistols, and they are the sort of things we would like to cover, they are not very frequently found in this country.

And for those that think that this is just funny, here's the what O'Malley said after that...

What I would propose to do, subject to expert advise, is to declare .22 pistols military weapons or “specially dangerous” which is the phrase used in this paragraph.

And thence followed thirty years without any pistols.

Sparks

By the way, we are now up to a total of eleven lists of amendments that affect the amendments to the firearms acts; here's the eleventh list, which contains changes relating to the firearms act. They're from the criminal section of the act, however, so they don't impinge on us so readily.

Also, the Minister met with the Committee again this morning to discuss amendments, and would have been talking about those which affect us directly; the minutes should come up here as soon as they're prepared. I'll post a note when they do.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Whoops, you're right - from the Seanad Archives for the 1971 Firearms Act debate:

And for those that think that this is just funny, here's the what O'Malley said after that...

And thence followed thirty years without any pistols.

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN!!!!After reading THAT it certainly proves that;
[1] Acedemic qualifications are no substitute for common horse sense
[2] An acedemic politican is more dangerous than a loaded and cocked firearm in the hands of a four year old.
3] Is there any hope for us at all here???The deaf&dumb being led by the blind and orderd by the thick on where to go.

Sparks

Acedemic qualifications are no substitute for common horse sense

Er, no, it just proves that an academic qualification in one area does not make you an expert in another...
It also shows the desperate need we have to educate those who make the law regarding firearms whenever and whereever possible. Leaflets, pamphlets, letters, personal contacts, the works.

civdef

If it's comedy yer after:

http://www.irlgov.ie/debates/s3jul98/sect6.htm

Seanad Eireann

Firearms (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Mr. Connor: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following subsection:

"(4) The Minister shall put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that a firearm in respect of which he has issued a certificate or licence to a person ordinarily resident outside the State is inspected against the details on the certificate or licence which has issued in respect of the said firearm, on the arrival of the licence at any port, airport or point of entry in the State and the same procedure shall apply on the licencee's departure at any port, airport or point of exit in the State.".

This amendment is reasonable. As things stand at the moment there is no requirement on a person with a firearm certificate to have the type of firearm recorded on entry into the country or for a similar check when the person is leaving the country.

The amendment is similar to one which was tabled in the Dáil. The Minister's reply that it could not be accepted because of the administrative difficulties involved was amazing. He said the implementation of the amendment would require the imposition of entry and exit checks at all ports and airports for firearms brought into and out of the country by tourists and that would cause considerable administrative resource difficulties.

I do not know why the Minister gave that response. We are dealing with lethal weapons and the strictest control should be maintained on them when they are imported into and exported from the country. I sincerely hope the Minister's reply will not be a repeat of his answer last night. The number of tourists with arms entering the country is relatively small, although the Minister and his colleague could not agree on it yesterday. One said 4,000 and the other said 3,000. Would the Minister give a response similar to the one he gave last night if the issue was about drugs? It is not just wildlife which is involved. Such weapons are used in crime and the incidence of this is increasing in Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. With the exception of the USA, all countries are moving to impose laws restricting the use of guns.

There was much mirth about Deputy Stagg's remark about shooting game which was out of range. Weapons for shooting game are restricted to a certain range. However, modern technology has now developed guns with a range so huge they are almost like military weapons. The type of ammunition used is also restricted. The distance shot can travel and its power of penetration should be controlled. Deputy Stagg made the point that certain weapons are brought into the country which exceed our standards and are being used. Wildlife normally shot at from 100 metres does not have a chance at 1,000 metres if some of these weapons and ammunition is used. That is the point Deputy Stagg made and that we make here. This amendment is to try to protect against that happening. We want the types of weapon used to be known and to have them properly checked at the ports of entry and exit. Given the relatively small number of tourists who engage in this activity, we are not against this kind of tourism so long as it is properly controlled. I sincerely hope the Minister sees the reason in the amendment and accedes to it.

Mr. D. Kiely: The Senator must live in a different country. From his description of the weapons used, one would think military aircraft were used in hunting birds. Shotguns are used and their range is approximately 35 to 40 yards, regardless of the cartridge used.

Mr. Connor: The Senator has obviously not read Jane's book on weaponry.

Acting Chairman: Senator Kiely extended Senator Connor the courtesy of not interrupting him when he was speaking.

Mr. Connor: Utterly inaccurate statements should not be made. The House should be protected against that.

Acting Chairman: This is Committee Stage so Senator Connor has the right of reply.

spideog7

any ETA on bringin in all this F**kology :rolleyes:

Sparks

Well, they were referring to it as the Firearms Act 2006, so we might assume this year. But it's already dragged on for a full year so far, something that a fair few deputies have commented on. So your guess spideog, is as good as mine...