Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Sparks · 30-03-2006 7:12pm

Cont'd:

65.—Section 1 of the Firearms (Firearm Certificates for Non-Residents) Act 2000
is amended—
(a) by the insertion of the following definition after the definition of “the
Act”—
“ “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána or a
member of the Garda Síochána, or members of a particular rank in the
Garda Síochána, not below the rank of superintendent appointed in
writing by the Commissioner for the purpose of performing any of the
Commissioner’s functions under this Act;”,
and
(b) by the insertion of the following definition after the definition of “the
Principal Act”:
“ “restricted firearm” means a firearm which is declared under section 2B
(a) of the Principal Act to be a restricted firearm;”.”.
—An tAire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí.
In page 25, before section 24, but in Part 4, to insert the following new section:
66.—Section 2 of the Firearms (Firearm Certificates for Non-Residents) Act 2000
is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “, Commissioner” after “Minister” on
both occasions where it occurs,
(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of the following paragraph after
paragraph (a):
“(aa) in case the firearm is a restricted firearm and is intended only
for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a), to the Minister or
Commissioner,”,
(c) in subsection (4), by the insertion of “or (aa)” after “paragraph (a)”, and
(d) in subsection (5), by the insertion of “, Commissioner” after “Minister”.”.
—An tAire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí.

Phew! Happy reading!

Sparks · 30-03-2006 7:41pm

FLAG wrote:

In early January we met with DOJ and all recommended amendments were taken on board and are included in the currently published document.

This simply isn't true.

Example; for restricted firearms (which a point of importance to any pistol holders out there), your notes on those meetings read:

(c) the restricted firearm is of such a unique type as to be the only weapon appropriate for the purpose [sought].
Note: The use of the word weapon is inappropriate. Sub section c is unworkable: Sporting rules determine the specifications to which eligible firearms must adhere to for particular purposes, these allow a significant variation in the type and configuration of the firearm and allow some flexibility. It would be more appropriate to change c to:
( c ) has a specific purpose for requiring the certificate for the firearm.
(C) will be removed and replaced with more appropriate wording, such as be required for a specific purpose or be suitable for the purpose that it is to be used for!

And yet in the amendments, (c), though renumbered, reads virtually identically:

has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of
weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for
which it is required.

In fact, it's even more onerous - as now you must prove it's the only type of firearm appropriate for the purpose. For olympic air pistols, not so hard. For .40 cal USP holders? Hunters looking for a humane dispatch firearm?

Also, several NTSA notes on the amendments were not taken into account in these new amendments, such as the concern over ballistic coefficients being used to restrict ammuntion, or that club coaches be permitted to supervise those on learning permits for firearms.

In relation to time limits on decisions over licences:

(9) A decision on an application for a firearm certificate or its
renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which
the applicant submitted a completed application form.

Yet nowhere is mentioned what happens if that time limit is exceeded, as was mentioned in your document :

This may be amended to 2 months, issue with respect to investigation of tourist shooters, in addition it is to be confirmed the date from which the application runs, perhaps by way of receipt. What happens when the time limit expires? It is envisaged that it will be assumed that the application has been granted if the period expires, this is similar to planning permission procedures.

Also, 3(a) remains intact:

3A.—(1) The Commissioner may, with the consent of the
Minister, from time to time issue guidelines in relation to the
practical application and operation of any provision of the
Firearms Acts 1925 to 2004.
(2) In particular, the Commissioner may issue such guidelines in
relation to applications for firearm certificates and authorisations
under this Act and to the conditions which may be attached to
those certificates and authorisations.”.

Nowhere in there is any mention of their consultation with us, as you said was agreed:

It has been agreed that guidelines will be drawn up by consultation with all interested parties, the initial base guidelines will be drawn up by DOJ but input will be expected by all interested parties, the guidelines will be published and their purpose will be to avoid ambiguity in the process.

And most basicly (and I'd love to hear the ICPSA's take on this), it's now a requirement when applying for a licence that

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

No mention of shotguns, as per your statement:

This will be changed to Rifle or Pistol Club

And totally fails to take into account the NTSA statement on this:

This would appear as though it may work in favour of clubs and associations. Nevertheless as a matter of principle I fail to see why an individual who would otherwise be entitled to shoot at game or vermin should not be entitled to engage in target shooting privately. There would also seem to be the possibility that sighting in a hunting firearm, or plinking or occasional target shooting with it would constitute an offence. At the very least the section should be amended to “…used primarily for target shooting…”. Also, they need to refine their definitions; clay pigeon shooting is a form of target shooting and presumably ICPSA members will not be especially pleased to be obliged to join rifle & pistol clubs.

In fact, throughout the CJB, reference is made to "rifle and pistol clubs" - not shotgun clubs.

And our medical information is still not private either:

written consent for any enquiries in relation to the
applicant’s medical history that may be made from a
health professional by or on behalf of the issuing
person,

And two references are still required:

names and addresses of two referees who may be
contacted to attest to the applicant’s character.

despite what you wrote:

Provision or the need to provide references has been objected to strongly by the SSAI, it is possible that an individual may not want anyone else to know his sport or past time, in addition this provision is not enforceable for tourist shooters, there was an undertaking to review this requirement.

And (g) is still in section four:

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

despite your saying:

Conditions to be applied in this section are again to be subject to the presumption of reasonableness and therefore unreasonable conditions may not be applied

In short Declan, it seems the DoJ only changed those things that were blatently daft (and not even all of those); and the other stuff, which could close down pistol shooting overnight with one written letter and lead to who-knows-how much wasted time and money in court cases before it returned, if it returned - overturning policy is a lot easier than overturning statute law - is still in there. Along with the worrying stuff like proof of competency (proven how? to whom? by what standard?), the legislation surrounding clubs and more.

And that's from ten minutes of reading. I'm not entirely enthusiastic about what deeper reading will reveal

Sparks · 30-03-2006 8:17pm

And another point; in the definitions is this little number:

the word “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of the Garda
Síochána or a member of the Garda Síochána, or members of a particular
rank in the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of superintendent
appointed in writing by the Commissioner for the purpose of performing
any of the Commissioner’s functions under this Act;

So, legally, a superintendant can issue guidelines as to how the Act is to be applied, under 3(a):

3A.—(1) The Commissioner may, with the consent of the
Minister, from time to time issue guidelines in relation to the
practical application and operation of any provision of the
Firearms Acts 1925 to 2004.
(2) In particular, the Commissioner may issue such guidelines in
relation to applications for firearm certificates and authorisations
under this Act and to the conditions which may be attached to
those certificates and authorisations.”.

Sparks · 30-03-2006 8:25pm

Also, I don't know if anyone caught it, but in the Minister's speech on Tuesday, he added this little tidbit:

I may wish to bring a limited number of additional amendments on Report Stage and Members of the Opposition are free to do likewise.

So we may not be done yet...
:rolleyes:

jaycee · 30-03-2006 11:57pm

Bloody hell ..

Heavy going, Some good stuff ..(training licences, reloading ... ) but overall
an exercise in clearing the waters by throwing more mud in ...

FLAG · 31-03-2006 11:47am

Well Sparks I too only had an opportunity to have a brief review of what was published and it appeared to me that substantially what was agreed was changed, this bill has been accelerated through because of recent events that one cannot fail to be aware of with resepct to crime with firearms, I am sure that there will be further amendments with respect to the changes we requested.

A lot of work went into the meetings that we had, it was somewhat like stoping a steam train, I believe we did a good job despite your derogitory remarks, but then again I did not expect any less from you because you are such a prat.

Sparks · 31-03-2006 12:17pm

Declan, even from ten minutes of reading it was obvious there were still some rather glaring problems (have you let the ICPSA know of the "rifle or pistol club" problem yet?), so to go and claim 100% success in public... well, you ought to know better really. I've no doubt you feel you worked hard on this, I'm just finding it hard to see exactly what it was that you did, since the very serious concerns I listed above (like medical records being requestable, like references being required, and so on) are totally unaltered in the committee-stage amendments from what we saw before your meetings. Could you perhaps lay out for us, in light of the new amendments we're now seeing, what successes you had?

Have you been told you'll be given a hearing by the Committee during this next stage or by the DoJ for it's next round of amendments yet?

I'm trying (quite a bit harder than some would have to, I'll grant you, but trying nonetheless) to not drop to name-calling here and to actually get some information out there Declan; and this is a pretty good opportunity to show in detail how useful FLAG is; so how about it?

FLAG · 31-03-2006 5:22pm

Simply put, shotguns are not included and there are no requirements related to shotgun ranges, the ICPSA has their own representation and they are well capable of representing their own views on the matter. If you review the actual detail it indicates "if the firearm is for target shooting" the regulations pertain to Rifle and Pistol Clubs! Take note that there is recognition for Pistol clubs in the legislation!

We have achieved a 3 year license, reloading and a 3 month time limit on the decsion to grant a certificate, there is also an appeals mechanism to the distict court, training certificates for individuals wishing to take up shooting (no grey area related to age and clubs), all in all not an insignificant amount achieved. We will keep our pistols and the sport will grow.

We discussed the issue of references and tried to get it removed, we were as per my note informed that it would be reviewed and nothing is legislation yet.

Finally the reference to the possible need for a medical certificate is enabling legislation to take in to consideration the outcome of the Barr Tribunal, and what ever recomendations are made when it is issued will be enacted into law by this aspect of the legislation. Alos mentioned in my notes.

My only intent with respect to the post on the board was to alert readers to the legislation as it was published, I was a little hasty in saying all as was discussed was changed, the notes on what was published on the SSAI web site were just that, notes of discussion points. I believe that they were under presure to issue the legislation and move it to committee, I am sure that we will see more changes as it progresses through and hopefully they will reflect what was discussed and agreed as per my report to the SSAI.

It is certainly not my intention to spend hours answering your questions, you must remember Mark you represent nobody but yourself. You were ejected from the NTSA committee and essetntially all you can do is stir the s*** on very public boards.

If the Associations/clubs affiliated to SSAI request specific information I would be delighted to answer any query through the correct chanels, e-mail to SSAI@eircom.net or flagireland@eircom.net

All meetings that we have had with the DOJ and the Gardai have been fully reported to the SSAI, from which FLAG is a sub-committee, I have no intention of engaging on the boards with you, your intentions may be honourable but I still think you are a total prat.

Sparks · 31-03-2006 7:03pm

FLAG wrote:

Simply put, shotguns are not included and there are no requirements related to shotgun ranges, the IPSA has their own representation and they are well capable of representing their own views on the matter.

But you have no intention of lending any form of helping hand to them or even contacting them to ask "Have you guys seen this?"?

If you review the actual detail it indicates "if the firearm is for target shooting" the regulations pertain to Rifle and Pistol Clubs! Take note that there is recognition for Pistol clubs in the legislation!

I also take note of the two facts that Clay Pigeon shooting is target shooting and the olympic clay pigeon shooters and the non-olympic clay pigeon shooters are doing better than damn near any other branch of shooting in Ireland right now, and if you spot somewhere where a simple email might assist them, it's pretty churlish to not send it.

We have achieved a 3 year license

Which will no doubt cost three times as much; meaning that in the end we've just saved ourselves some paperwork. Where's the licence for the shooter instead of the firearm along lines of the UK FAC model?

reloading and a 3 month time limit on the decsion to grant a certificate

And congratulations on those, though I'll also pass on those same congratulations to the NARGC who did the heavy lifting, if you don't mind.

training certificates fro individuals wishing to take up shooting (no grey area related to age and clubs)

But no work done regarding the coaches as the NTSA requested.

, all in all not an insignificant amount achieved. We will keep our pistols and the sport will grow.

OR, they'll be declared restricted, we'll see enormously difficult hoops put in place for us to jump through, the sport will be strangulated at rebirth, and it'll have the weight of statute law behind it this time, without a policy to go to court to have easily dismissed!

We discussed references and tried to get it removed, it is still not legislation yet.

Then good luck in having it removed. Upon rereading the Minister's speech, I noted that he specified the areas he wants to add more amendments to, and firearms law didn't get mentioned - does your legal advice say that it can be amended nonetheless?

Finally the requirement for Medical is enabling legislation to take in to consideration the outcome of the Barr Tribunal, and what ever recomendations are made when it is issued will be enacted into law by this aspect of the legislation.

Well, I can only speak for myself Declan, but that makes me feel absolutely no better whatsoever. I can get licenced for a car, a dog, a plane, damn near anything else in this country, and in every case where there's a valid concern over my medical state, I take a test and pass or fail; I do not have to submit my medical records to an anonymous party in the Phoenix Park and I certainly don't have to worry about who's seen those records, who's lost a copy, what the audit trail is or any of those issues in the process! How can you accept this as a trivial matter so blithely? And what, pray tell, has my GP's record of my allergies got to do with whether or not I'm fit to hold a firearm?

It is certainly not my intention to spend hours answering your questions, you must remember Mark you represent nobody but yourself. You were ejected from the NTSA committee and essetntially all you can do is stir the s*** on very public boards.

Thank you for reminding us of your contribution to past NTSA matters Declan. If you want to post the URL to the thread here where we discussed in detail your role in threatening the NTSA with litigation to prompt the EGM, go right ahead. I certainly don't have anything I don't want others to know about that incident.

As to the boards, what is it about what you do that is so worrying that you dare not expose it to the light of day?

If the Associations/clubs affiliated to SSAI request specific information I would be delighted to answer any query through the correct chanels, e-mail to SSAI@eircom.net or flagireland@eircom.net

And if any affiliated club asks, will you answer? Or will they meet the same silence that you afforded official emails from the NTSA?

I have no intention of engaging on the boards with you, your intentions may be honourable but I still think you are a total prat.

Think as you may Declan, Molann an obair an fear.

Sparks · 31-03-2006 10:46pm

BTW, the first Committee meeting to consider the Bill is on Tuesday at 1400 in Leinster House.

Riggser · 01-04-2006 2:42am

FLAG wrote:

...but I still think you are a total prat.

Getting personal, uncalled for and unprofessional.

FLAG · 01-04-2006 8:45am

You clearly do not know him! I am very professional and I very rarely have an outburst such as this, but I will make an exception this time and any time Mark attacks my integrity.:mad: You make accusation about the lack of professionalism, yet you have a stupid tag on your post!!! which is far from funny.

civdef · 01-04-2006 11:02am

OK, the subject of this thread is far too important to the sport to be turned into yet another Sparks vs FLAG bash-athon. Further posts of that nature will be deleted to preserve the sense of the original thread.

Clare gunner · 01-04-2006 12:50pm

Could we give Sparks and FLAG a sticky for slagging each other off??: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Riggser · 01-04-2006 6:53pm

FLAG wrote:

You make accusation about the lack of professionalism, yet you have a stupid tag on your post!!! which is far from funny.

Your post was unprofessional by you making a personal attack on this board, doesn't matter what way you wish to dress it up.

As for me and my "stupid tag", who ever said I was trying to be professional? And if you don't find it funny I can't do anything for you there, unless you would like to make a suggestion?:D

Sparks · 04-04-2006 2:12pm

The full list of amendments to the original bill have been compiled into a single file on the Bill's website here.

Sparks · 19-04-2006 4:57pm

Okay folks, hopefully this will be of some help. I got tired of trying to read the Firearms Acts by reading the 1925 act, then the '64, then the '68, then the '71, then the '90, then the '98 and then the 2000 acts, so I've taken the directions in subsequent acts and amended the prior acts as they instruct to come up with a single composite document. It's not done by a long shot - I've only done sections 1 through 8 and section 6 is a bit odd - and it's not a legal document, but it should provide some sort of overview, I hope.

The current Firearms Act, pre-Criminal Justice Bill 2004

What the Firearms Act will look like, after the enaction of the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. This is based on the latest amendments to the CJB as dealt with in the Committee stage that's going on right now.

Let me know what you think.

Personally, reading through it, I think that there's a right mess coming down the pipes at us. In section 1, definitions, there are two definitions of what a firearm is and they don't match up. I mean, how basic is that?

In section 2, firearms dealers are no longer exempt from needing licences to hold firearms or ammo if they are deemed restricted. Also, the definition of a sporting firearm has been deleted completely.

In section 2A (new), the firearms training certificate no longer covers those under age 16 and those supervising now have to be over 21. And the cert only lasts 2 years, not 3.

In section 2B (new), firearms and ammo can be restricted on just about any grounds whatsoever.

Section 3 (the form of firearms certs) has been replaced completely. You can apply for renewal a month before the cert is revoked; but such renewal can take up to 3 months so what do you do in the intervening two months?

Section 3A seems to say this all comes into effect this year as it referes to the Firearms Acts 1925-2006. 3A is also the doozy that lets the commissioner, or anyone in the Gardai that he nominates, issue guidelines for applying the Acts.

Section 4 has been totally replaced as well. I think everyone has to read this. No longer do you have just three things to have for a licence, nor the four originally mentioned in the CJB. Now you have to comply with this list:

(a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,

(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,

(c) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate,

(d) has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,

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

(f) is of sound mental and psychiatric health,

(g) has sufficient capacity to possess and operate a firearm responsibly and
safely,

(h) has complied with subsection (3),

(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

(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.

Also in 4 :

(3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—

(a) proof of identity,

(b) proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,

(c) written consent for any enquiries in relation to the applicant’s medical history that may be made from a health professional by or on behalf of the issuing person, and

(d) names and addresses of two referees who may be contacted to attest to the applicant’s character.

It just gets better and better :rolleyes:

Section 4a is on the authorisation of ranges and clubs. It's got a fair few sections in it, but this one's a doozy:

(13) The Minister, in consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations specify minimum standards to be complied with by a rifle or pistol club or shooting range before an authorisation under this section may be granted in respect of it.

(14) The minimum standards shall be determined—
(a) in the case of a club, by reference to any or all of the following matters:
(i) security of its premises;
(ii) membership;
(iii) management,
(b) in the case of a shooting range, by reference to any or all of the following matters:
(i) security of the range;
(ii) membership;
(iii) management;
(iv) design, construction and maintenance;
(v) types of firearms and ammunition to be used;
(vi) level of competence of persons using the range.

There are nice things in Section 4b where it says that range inspectors have to continually reinspect ranges without warning and that if they think you have a range, they can inspect it at any time without prior appointment (or warrant, it would seem), irregardless of whether it's in your home or not.

And in section 8, it just got a lot more specific as to who's disentitled to hold a certificate:

(a) any person under the age of sixteen years, and

(b) any person of intemperate habits, and

(c) any person of unsound mind, and

(d) any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for—
(i) a serious offence under any one of the following Acts:
(I) the Offences Against the Person Act 1828;
(II) the Malicious Damage Act 1861;
(III) the Offences Against the Person Act 1861;
(IV) the Explosives Acts 1875 to 2006;
(V) the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006;
(VI) the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998;
(VII) the Misuse of Drugs Act 1977;
(VIII) the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981;
(IX) the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984;
(X) the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989;
(XI) the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990;
(XII) the Criminal Damage Act 1991;
(XIII) the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act 1996;
(XIV) the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997; or
(XV) the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005,

(ii) an offence under any one of the following Acts:
(I) the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006;
(II) the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998; or
(III) the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005,

(iii) any violent crime, or

(iv) an offence under the law of another state involving the production or use of a firearm, and the sentence has not expired or it expired within the previous 5 years, and

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

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

Now, perhaps FLAG would tell us what's planned to challange this large morass of crap that's aimed in our specific direction? Or when we get to address the Committee to put our case forward prior to the bill going back to the Dail?

Quillo · 19-04-2006 5:24pm

Does anyone know if this "proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned" will apply to new applications or renewals or both ?

Is there a statutory competence certification body being proposed ?

FLAG · 19-04-2006 6:46pm

Simple really, queries received through the correct channels have been attended to and representations have already been made through the appropriate channels to the DOJ, responses that have been received have been been summarised and sent to SSAI Committee. Should you require further clarification feel free to contact your Club/Association and if they are affiliated to SSAI I would expect that you will receive an appropriate brief.

I have learned the hard way not to respond to your queries sparks as all I get in return is abuse. Anyone with specifi queries can e-mail flagireland@eircom.net

Kind Regards

jaycee · 19-04-2006 10:11pm

It may be a silly question ..

But where is the definition of a "range" ..

I only ask because , this bit 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.

So what i'm wondering is..
If you are doing a little practicing / plinking on your own land , is it now open to inspection at any time..... and taking this logic a little further ... wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect that if you have a firearm and your own land ..you might shoot on it..? Therefore leaving one open to "inspection" at any time.

4am security check anyone ...?
Oh ..and btw ..you better pick up any brass /wads /used shotgun shells.
Just in case you are charged with running a range without permission.

For example ...what about the hundreds of people who own a clay trap and a box of clays ..eh.?

PS:... What happened the minimum age for the training licences ..
Wasn't that supposed to be lower than 16.?

Sparks · 19-04-2006 11:33pm

jaycee wrote:

It may be a silly question ...
But where is the definition of a "range" ...

There isn't one. Closest you get is at the end of section 4a:

“rifle or pistol club” means a club established, inter alia, for the purpose of promoting skill in the use of rifles and pistols for target shooting;

“shooting range” does not include a range or shooting gallery referred to in section 2(4)(e) of this Act.

But there is a definition of "place" :

“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;

So what i'm wondering is..
If you are doing a little practicing / plinking on your own land , is it now open to inspection at any time...

Legally, yes.

.. and taking this logic a little further ... wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect that if you have a firearm and your own land ..you might shoot on it..? Therefore leaving one open to "inspection" at any time.

Legally, yes.

4am security check anyone ...?

And you wonder why I was so worried at it?

PS:... What happened the minimum age for the training licences ..
Wasn't that supposed to be lower than 16.?

It was. Then the committee (specifically Jim O'Keefe) amended it.

(BTW, as this is more to do with the CJB, I've moved the posts to the CJB thread...)

Sparks · 19-04-2006 11:37pm

Quillo wrote:

Does anyone know if this "proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned" will apply to new applications or renewals or both ?

From the phrasing of other parts of the act, specifically section 5 (1) (e):

(e) has not complied with a condition attached to the grant
of the certificate, or

I would guess both.

Is there a statutory competence certification body being proposed ?

If so, it's not in the CJB. You could ask FLAG I suppose :rolleyes:

Sparks · 19-04-2006 11:48pm

FLAG wrote:

Simple really, queries received through the correct channels have been attended to and representations have already been made through the appropriate channels to the DOJ, responses that have been received have been been summarised and sent to SSAI Committee. Should you require further clarification feel free to contact your Club/Association and if they are affiliated to SSAI I would expect that you will receive an appropriate brief.

In other words, you've made responses to the DoJ on my behalf (as well as everyone else in here); but in order to find out what those responses were, I'd have to go through at least two layers of organisational abstraction to see what you said.

I think I'll send an FOI request to the DoJ directly and post the results here as well.

I have learned the hard way not to respond to your queries sparks as all I get in return is abuse. Anyone with specifi queries can e-mail flagireland@eircom.net

...but won't receive a reply as they won't be asking through correct channels, as you stated earlier.

Clare gunner · 20-04-2006 11:48am

jaycee wrote:

It may be a silly question ..

But where is the definition of a "range" ..

I only ask because , this bit states....

So what i'm wondering is..
If you are doing a little practicing / plinking on your own land , is it now open to inspection at any time..... and taking this logic a little further ... wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect that if you have a firearm and your own land ..you might shoot on it..? Therefore leaving one open to "inspection" at any time.

Not really feasabile this law for a start,as it then clashes with the constitutional rights of property and privacy rights.Plus remember no one can enter your property without your permission,or a warrent and if you have locked gates to the property,well then the laws of tresspass apply as well.

4am security check anyone ...?

Nope, a warrent or raid or whatever must be by old Irish common law executed at "peep O day".Ie there must be enough light for you to be able to read the writ and see the people involved.Hence most raids are around 6AM give or take.So you can have,as well as the gaurds abit of a lie in till trouble knocks.:D

For example ...what about the hundreds of people who own a clay trap and a box of clays ..eh.?

Tell them to go jump!As I will!It is your property,unless you are holding a clayshoot with a whole bunch of people every weekend and collecting money from it ,it can hardly be claimed to be a range.I would ASSume some sort of common sense will be applied to this as well.

Keelan · 20-04-2006 12:37pm

Im confused about one thing.
What does this mean to people who own .223 rifles, high powerd rifles, pistols ect?
Will we have to give these up?

maglite · 20-04-2006 12:53pm

I would ASSume some sort of common sense will be applied to this as well.

we are talkin about Guards here ASS U ME

Sparks · 20-04-2006 1:07pm

Clare gunner wrote:

Not really feasabile this law for a start,as it then clashes with the constitutional rights of property and privacy rights.Plus remember no one can enter your property without your permission,or a warrent and if you have locked gates to the property,well then the laws of tresspass apply as well.

Well. Yes and no. There are some cases (chasing after a suspect for example) where that won't apply; the question would be whether this law is adding a valid case. There is definitely a question here for the courts though. But here's the thing - this shouldn't ever have even gotten near law, let alone the courts!

Nope, a warrent or raid or whatever must be by old Irish common law executed at "peep O day".Ie there must be enough light for you to be able to read the writ and see the people involved.Hence most raids are around 6AM give or take.So you can have,as well as the gaurds abit of a lie in till trouble knocks.:D

Yeah, that won't hold up if the Garda has a torch or you have electric lights, will it? Especially when the legislation explicitly says "at any time and without prior notice.". At least they do have to have a warrant though.

Tell them to go jump!As I will!

Good luck with that, but don't do it on any range I'd shoot on, would you?

Sparks · 20-04-2006 1:11pm

Keelan wrote:

Im confused about one thing.
What does this mean to people who own .223 rifles, high powerd rifles, pistols ect?
Will we have to give these up?

There's nothing in the legislation that states policy, but there is a whole lot of mechanism.
In other words, the CJB doesn't say you'll have to; it "just" gives the Minister of the day full authority and the legal tools he or she would need, should he or she choose to ban any and all kinds of firearms on virtually any grounds he or she could choose from.

Rovi · 20-04-2006 1:11pm

Sparks wrote:

jaycee wrote:

PS:... What happened the minimum age for the training licences ..
Wasn't that supposed to be lower than 16.?

It was. Then the committee (specifically Jim O'Keefe) amended it.

Buggeration!
This bit is/was of very particular interest to a certain young man of my acquaintance (and almost as importantly, his mother).
He's 14 now, but if I have to wait another 2 years before I can 'officially' take him shooting, I fear he may have discovered other spurious activities like 'girls', 'hanging out' with 'unapproved' persons, etc.

Here's the 'COMPOSITE LIST OF AMENDMENTS', for all you masochists out there- http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2004/3404/b3404d-dcNComp.pdf

Mr. O'Keeffe appears to have been a very busy boy; are all these amendments now part of the legislation, or are they up for debate and further amendment?

civdef · 20-04-2006 1:18pm

Mr. O'Keeffe appears to have been a very busy boy;

Mr. O'Keefe has a long history of doing his best to restrict shooting as much as possible.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Comments