Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Sparks

civdef wrote:

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

Well, he must be loving this bill so...

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

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.


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

Mark I never made any responses on your behalf, I certainly do not have a lifetime to compile the detailed queries that you raise. FLAG was mandated by the NRPAI some years ago (now SSAI) to do a job, we are continuing to do that job and are responsible to the members, clubs and associations of the SSAI, any query that has been passed to us has been responded to efficiently.

To send an FOI to a government departments when there is a mechanism to deal with queries raised by the CJB will only serve to make the shooting community that you purport to represent look like an ass. If you are still a member of the NTSA why do you not direct your queries to them, they are affiliated to the SSAI and indeed a number of queries raised by them have already been answered.

With respect to specific responses on the boards related to queries, you your good self put an end to that, with your incessant bickering about what had been posted in response.

Quillo

Sparks wrote:

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.


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

So - every time you renew your licence you have to demonstrate competence in the use of your chosen weapon/s.

I wonder how that will be judged...1 inch group at 200m or simply showing that you know which end the bullet comes out ?

Sparks

Mark I never made any responses on your behalf

I'm a member of the NTSA. Which is a member of the NRPAI. On whose behalf FLAG talks to the DoJ. So yes, you do make responses on my behalf, along with (as I said) a lot of other people.

To send an FOI to a government departments when there is a mechanism to deal with queries raised by the CJB will only serve to make the shooting community that you purport to represent look like an ass.

I purport to represent noone but myself. But if you're worried that the process would be damaging, I haven't sent it off yet. If you provide the information here for us, I see no need to do so. There's a solution right there, which would not only prevent what you see as a damaging action, but which would also act as rumour control.

With respect to specific responses on the boards related to queries, you your good self put an end to that, with your incessant bickering about what had been posted in response.

If you post information Declan, and it doesn't answer questions or doesn't make sense, as yours did not to me, then you need to expect further questions. To try ad hominem attacks to avoid answering them is odd - when you took on that role, you were taking on a responsibility to keep people informed. If you don't want to do that... well, that's another argument. We can go to another thread for it. But frankly, if people have questions, the best option - or at least, the best option I've ever found - is just to answer them.

Sparks

Quillo wrote:

So - every time you renew your licence you have to demonstrate competence in the use of your chosen weapon/s.
I wonder how that will be judged...1 inch group at 200m or simply showing that you know which end the bullet comes out ?

No idea. There are some competency tests out there at the moment - the deer hunting one springs to mind and there's a 10/22 one that the NASRC do, but there's no sign of any being officially recognised by the DoJ for the purposes of this Act, so far as I know.

Keelan

One thing that im not sure about.
Will folks that have .223s, deer calibers and pistols, get to keep their firearms?

Sparks

Hmm. Okay, a few people have posted here asking about what the state of play will be for fullbores and pistols after the CJB goes through. That's not really what this thread was for - so I've moved those posts to the CJB thread here, along with the best answer I can think of. Keelan, your posts got moved there earlier, sorry I didn't PM to let you know.

jaycee

After further reflection..

1. Why did anyone think it nessesary to alter the amendments to the age limits for the new "Training licences" from the proposed 14 years to 16 years.

2. Why in the same section .. was it thought that a 16 year old holder of a training licence would need to be supervised by the licence holder for that firearm .. But the age of the principal licence holder now needs to be "Not less than 21 "

This is utter rubbish ... At 18 ,19 or 20 you are deemed mature enough to own and use a firearm , but not old enough to supervise someone on a training licence.

3. AFAIK .. in the existing legislation ..at 16 years of age you can apply for a licence for a shotgun in your own right ..why would you want a training licence..?

4. Why ..although the parameters on which a firearm can be classified as "Restricted" are clearly laid out ( Calibre , etc..) are there still no concrete guidelines as to what is actually allowed or denied.
(a) No maximum velocity stated
(b) No Muzzle energy figures stated
(c) No Maximum calibre stated.


5. With all the provisions on the management of ranges .. How come there isn't a set of guidelines which spell out such basics as ..

(a) Minimum height of backstops.
(b) Material suitable for backstops.
(c) Security measures for storage of club firearms .
(d) Security requirements for ranges.
(e) Provisions for first aid .

6. With regard to ones competence to either use a firearm or to reload ammunition .... no standards stated . So how do you comply with the requirements ? .

After all the talk , hopes ,thought and time that has been expended on this
subject , it is alarming to see so many obvious "Holes" and dead ends that
are left at the mercy of subjective judgements .

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

After further reflection..

*passes jaycee the antacids*

1. Why did anyone think it nessesary to alter the amendments to the age limits for the new "Training licences" from the proposed 14 years to 16 years.

2. Why in the same section .. was it thought that a 16 year old holder of a training licence would need to be supervised by the licence holder for that firearm .. But the age of the principal licence holder now needs to be "Not less than 21 "

This is utter rubbish ... At 18 ,19 or 20 you are deemed mature enough to own and use a firearm , but not old enough to supervise someone on a training licence.

Don't know why this was put forward, but I can tell you who put it forward - Jim O'Keefe.

3. AFAIK .. in the existing legislation ..at 16 years of age you can apply for a licence for a shotgun in your own right ..why would you want a training licence..?

Presumably to learn how to shoot safely - but it does put the whole area of safety right out into the realm of being legally optional. And do you know of anyone who took further driving lessons after passing their test?

4. Why ..although the parameters on which a firearm can be classified as "Restricted" are clearly laid out ( Calibre , etc..) are there still no concrete guidelines as to what is actually allowed or denied.
(a) No maximum velocity stated
(b) No Muzzle energy figures stated
(c) No Maximum calibre stated.

To quote from the handbook of writing device drivers for unix, "mechanism, not policy". In other words, the legislation contains no policy - if it did, it wouldn't be constitutional - merely the mechanisms for enacting policies later decided upon by the Minister of the day without parlimentary scrutiny.

5. With all the provisions on the management of ranges .. How come there isn't a set of guidelines which spell out such basics as ..
(a) Minimum height of backstops.
(b) Material suitable for backstops.
(c) Security measures for storage of club firearms .
(d) Security requirements for ranges.
(e) Provisions for first aid .

All to be decided later by the Minister/Commissioner/Any Garda they nominate.
And anyone that tells you that there's some agreement that this won't happen basicly trusts the DoJ a lot more than most of us would.

6. With regard to ones competence to either use a firearm or to reload ammunition .... no standards stated . So how do you comply with the requirements ? .

Not only no standards, but no metrics either. In other words, not only do you not know how good you have to be, you also don't know at what you have to be good. Is it accuracy? Is it cleaning the barrel? Is it knowing the legislation with regard to your own activities? Is it being able to identify your firearm from a catalogue? Is it knowing what it's called in hungarian?

After all the talk , hopes ,thought and time that has been expended on this
subject , it is alarming to see so many obvious "Holes" and dead ends that
are left at the mercy of subjective judgements .

I'm deliberately not going into that pit of despair. Though it's hard not to mention the glowing reports the CJB got prior to this point from some :mad:

jaycee

*passes jaycee the antacids*

Once again..."Sigh"

No mention of either calibre or quantity

Sparks

Put it this way JC, here's the bottle:

Clare gunner

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.

Errr.Not quite on the electric light either.If they switch on the light without your permission,they are stealing your electricity!!!!You can insist that they turn the light out to conduct the search![Thanks to a certain aquaintance of mine who is doing a spot of porridge for this info.]Hence the reason most of these searches are done at daybreak.

Go

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

I meant that more in relation to Jaycees post ,if you are shooting on your own private property and some sort of burrocratic busybody shows up wanting to know if I am running a "range".:rolleyes:

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Errr.Not quite on the electric light either.If they switch on the light without your permission,they are stealing your electricity!!!!You can insist that they turn the light out to conduct the search![Thanks to a certain aquaintance of mine who is doing a spot of porridge for this info.]Hence the reason most of these searches are done at daybreak.

Pardon the cynicism there CG, but Gardai carry torches and the CJB is clear on this point (though surprisingly, horridly murky anywhere it could do us some good ) - it says "at any time and without prior notice."

I meant that more in relation to Jaycees post ,if you are shooting on your own private property and some sort of burrocratic busybody shows up wanting to know if I am running a "range".:rolleyes:

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

There is absolutely nothing in there that says a range on private land is exempt, whether or not it's open to the public. Don't forget - it does distinguish between a club and a range, so even if it's just a field with a target board at the far end and a backstop, it's a range.

And if you do get an authorisation for the range, you still have to allow inspections, and if you don't, the penalty is rather stiff. From Section 4a:
(15) For the purpose of ascertaining whether conditions attached to an authorisation under this section are being complied with, a member of an Garda Síochána authorised in that behalf may, on production if required of the authorisation or a copy of it, enter any premises occupied or used by the club or shooting range concerned and inspect the premises and anything in them.

(16) Any person who by act or omission impedes or obstructs a member of an Garda Síochána in the exercise of the member’s functions under subsection (15) of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of €1,000 and imprisonment for a term of 3 months or both.
And of course, you'd lose your firearms licences immediately after that...

And if you decide to not get an authorisation for a range, and just shoot there, then you, and anyone else who shoots there, is in a spot of bother. Also from 4a:
(18) It is an offence—
(a) for a club, or the owner or operator of a shooting range—
(i) to contravene subsection (1) of this section, or

(ii) without reasonable excuse, not to comply with any conditions attached to an authorisation under this section,

(b) for a person not to comply with subsection (12) of this section, or

(c) for a person, without reasonable excuse, to participate in the activities of such a club or shooting range for which an authorisation under this section is not in force.

And again, ignore this at your own peril:
(20) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both, and

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both.

And the closest you get to the definition of a range in the entire CJB is probably from 4a(21):
“shooting range” does not include a range or shooting gallery referred to in section 2(4)(e) of this Act.
Which is as useful as a chocolate frying pan really.

jaycee

Re : The above ..!

When something is as seriously flawed and open to abuse as this , is it not possible to contest it. I presume the process is still open to objection and input.

I also doubt if this was the intention of the bill , even in my most cynical moments. The fact remains though , that intended or not , this form of words is included at the moment and it needs to be brought to the attention of those with the power to contest it , or to those in a position to have some influence on those with the power to change it.

It has the potential to impact on every branch of shooting and as such needs to be made clear to every representative of every shooting body in the country. It may well be the one thing that all branches of our sport can agree on.

I have no wish to sound too dramatic , but surely this cuts across any and all.. old disagreements and faction fights within shooting and even outside of the sport into the realms of civil liberties and a reasonable right to enjoy ones property and possessions in a lawful and democratic manner.

Any useful suggestions on how to get the ball rolling ? , bearing in mind that if we can't formulate a coherent strategy for response here ..it is unlikely to happen at all.

I welcome input from all , be they clay shooters , target shooters, hunters, collectors, club members, association reps , club reps... or simply people who wish to see their right to privacy , the rule of law and due process preserved.

civdef

You could do a lot worse than indicate practical examples of how parts of the lgislation will negatively impact on you, then pass this information on to your local TD's.

Clare gunner

Sparks!I am pointing out a practicality of Garda operational matters.Yes we know they carry torches,but THAT IS THE WAY RAIDS ARE CARRIED OUT.Weather you like it or not!!Argue the point with the Gaurds.I make my living from process serving and I can tell you that you cannot serve writs or raids before dawn!!!
As for this other point anyone who thinks that an inspector can just walk onto private land,is very much mistaken,whatever this piece of crap proposed law suggests!!!There are fundamental constitutional rights of property that have nothing to do with shooting whatsoever that are then violated by this!
PLUS I am talking about private property and not a range operated for the public use.Not only that I dont see any proper defination under law of what a "range"consists of as usual.So until they define what is what in law,I will continue to shoot post this law without let or hinderance on my own property,and I encourage all who do have property to do so .
BTW it would be very stupid for somone to come onto anyones property at 4am without saying who they are,they might get a warmer reception than they bargined for.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Sparks!I am pointing out a practicality of Garda operational matters.Yes we know they carry torches,but THAT IS THE WAY RAIDS ARE CARRIED OUT.Weather you like it or not!!Argue the point with the Gaurds.I make my living from process serving and I can tell you that you cannot serve writs or raids before dawn!!!

I'm just pointing out, CG, that the CJB is very clear on not saying that. And since it's a new form of inspection and warrant - in fact they specifically don't call it a warrant - I'm not sure that the body of common law that applies to warrants would apply here.

As for this other point anyone who thinks that an inspector can just walk onto private land,is very much mistaken,whatever this piece of crap proposed law suggests!!!

I have to point out CG, that if this is passed, anyone who thinks an inspector can't walk onto private land with an authorisation from the Commissioner or any Garda he nominates, is wrong and may be seriously punished for trying to prevent him/her from doing so!

There are fundamental constitutional rights of property that have nothing to do with shooting whatsoever that are then violated by this!

Those fundamental constitutional rights don't prohibit search warrants. And that's the mechanism this CJB is trying to duplicate. It ought to be challanged on constitutional grounds before it sees the outside of the Committee stage, or at some later stage if that doesn't happen, but if that challange isn't successful, then your rights will be ruled not to be violated.

PLUS I am talking about private property and not a range operated for the public use.

No such distinction is made by the CJB. It makes no mention of whether or not the range is private or public, it just says any range must be authorised. Any other arrangement would be internal policy in the DoJ or Gardai, and I think we've a fair bit of experience in this country with such internal policies in relation to firearms and how they benefit shooting...

Not only that I dont see any proper defination under law of what a "range"consists of as usual.So until they define what is what in law,I will continue to shoot post this law without let or hinderance on my own property,and I encourage all who do have property to do so . BTW it would be very stupid for somone to come onto anyones property at 4am without saying who they are,they might get a warmer reception than they bargined for.

:mad: :mad: :mad:
I'll just say this once CG - what you're talking about is an offence under several sections of criminal law in Ireland. Following through with it would be a premeditated crime that would have serious consequences for every shooter in the country. Encouraging others to join you in this incredibly badly thought out idea is reprehensible, and I strongly urge you to drop the idea.

Sparks

Regarding the searching, a useful source of info is provided by the ICCL:
http://iccl.ie/DB_Data/publications/knowyourrights2003.pdf

Try page 11 and onwards. Here's a few relevant parts:

If the gardaí believe a crime has been committed, they are allowed to search a person or premises. Searches can be carried out with or without a warrant depending on the purpose of the search and which of the many powers the gardaí are acting under.
The law on searches and your rights, if you and your premises are
searched. are set out in more detail in the following sections. However there are some key things that you should remember if you, or your property, are ever subjected to a search:
• You are entitled to ask why you or your premises are being searched.
• You should ask the gardaí to identify themselves, and, if they are in plain clothes, ask to see their identity cards.
• If asked, always give your name and address. If you do not you may be committing an offence.
• Ask to see the search warrant under which the gardaí are acting, or, if they do not have one, under what powers they intend to carry out the search.
• Take note of the method in which the search is carried out.
• All searches must be carried out fairly and cannot be conducted in an
oppressive manner.
• Take a note of the names of the officers who carry out the search.
• If you have any doubts at all as to the validity of the search or the manner
in which is was carried out, contact a solicitor.

Can my home or premises be searched by gardaí against my will?
Yes. A large number of statutes create powers of entry and search for the gardaí, for a variety of different purposes. Most of these powers relate to a specific criminal offence, for example the power to search premises where someone is suspected of handling stolen goods under the Larceny Acts 1916 and 1990 and the power to search a premises in relation to theft and fraud offences under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.

Some powers are more general, for example, under the Criminal Law Act 1997, a garda may, in certain circumstances, if necessary by use of force, enter and search any property for the purposes of arresting someone whom he or she reasonably suspects is on the property.

Do gardaí have to have a warrant?
For most searches gardaí do need a warrant, but not for all. If a warrant is required this is usually stated in the statute that sets out the offence, for example section 48 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. There are also provisions which create powers of search under a warrant for a number of offences. The power to search a premises under section 10 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, which applies to serious offences such as murder, some sexual offences and false imprisonment, and the power to search a premises under section 26 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 & 1984 for drugs are two examples. Powers of search without a warrant include a common law power for gardaí to search the place where someone is arrested for the purposes of taking into custody any dangerous weapon or other item that may be evidence of the crime alleged. Gardaí also have the power under section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1997 to enter and search a premises for the purposes of arresting someone suspected to be in the premises.

If gardaí come to your property for the purposes of carrying out a search, always ask to see the warrant. If they do not have one and say they do not need one, ask them to explain in detail under what power they are carrying out the search.

Can I remain in my property while the gardaí are searching it?
Yes you can. You are entitled to observe the manner in which the search is being carried out. You should not however obstruct a search. At all times such a search should be carried out in a fair manner and the power to search is not allowed to be used oppressively. If you have any concern in relation to the way in which a search was carried out, you should contact your solicitor.

If the gardaí are taking any items with them, you should make a list of all the items they have taken.

Can I prevent gardaí from entering my premises if I think they are
acting unlawfully?
No. You should not obstruct a search carried out by gardaí. If you do this you could be committing an offence. However, if you think the search was unlawful or carried out in an unfair or oppressive manner, you should object and you should register this objection with the gardaí. You should also tell your solicitor immediately. Evidence obtained unlawfully can be excluded by a court.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

I'm just pointing out, CG, that the CJB is very clear on not saying that. And since it's a new form of inspection and warrant - in fact they specifically don't call it a warrant - I'm not sure that the body of common law that applies to warrants would apply here.

As a matter of fact it will be affected by or affect many other Irish laws.As this will be a more draconian law than the current law on search.So the whole law not even to applying to firearms will have to be changed.

I have to point out CG, that if this is passed, anyone who thinks an inspector can't walk onto private land with an authorisation from the Commissioner or any Garda he nominates, is wrong and may be seriously punished for trying to prevent him/her from doing so!

Then he had better be bringing his paperwork with him at 4am then,and please be very loud,as I am getting deaf in my old age,and am fierce worried about gurriers trying to break in.:mad:

Those fundamental constitutional rights don't prohibit search warrants. And that's the mechanism this CJB is trying to duplicate. It ought to be challanged on constitutional grounds before it sees the outside of the Committee stage, or at some later stage if that doesn't happen, but if that challange isn't successful, then your rights will be ruled not to be violated

.
No ,but everyones else rights will be damaged,as then the "range inspector" can be used as a default excuse to search anyones property for anything under the excuse that they had a "firing range or suspected range".Even if you were in the middle of a housing estate.
So in other words we can dispense with the laws of search and seisure,privacy and warrents under this.And you are right it must be totally changed ASAP.

No such distinction is made by the CJB. It makes no mention of whether or not the range is private or public, it just says any range must be authorised. Any other arrangement would be internal policy in the DoJ or Gardai, and I think we've a fair bit of experience in this country with such internal policies in relation to firearms and how they benefit shooting...

Well let them try it then.I think it will be laughed out of court,that somone with their own legal firearm was charged with shooting on an illegal range on their own private property,where they were causing no harm to anyone and were shooting foryears.
PLUS I noticed a MAJOR fault in this .It states with reasonable belif where RIFLE or PISTOL shooting is being carried out.What is missing here boys and girls????
Already this proves that this whole concept is a farce

:mad: :mad: :mad:
I'll just say this once CG - what you're talking about is an offence under several sections of criminal law in Ireland. Following through with it would be a premeditated crime that would have serious consequences for every shooter in the country. Encouraging others to join you in this incredibly badly thought out idea is reprehensible, and I strongly urge you to drop the idea

Thats your opinion Sparks on legislation that does not exist yet.:mad: :mad:So how can it be a crime unless it is legislated law???? Unless I woke up in north Korea this morning,we still had a parlimentry process of sorts and freedom of expression.


I said I,for one[and I dont expect anyone else to help nor am I asking YOU or anyone else to help] on this as we are a most cowed and cowardly race here,except when somone else does somthing,we all jump on the bandwagon and then critisize the doer as how it can be done better,or just perptually bitch and moan.
I will shoot on my property wether the Gardai,range inspectors,the taoiseach or minister for justice or YOU like it or not when this law is enacted, if ever.It is a stupid,illegal,and unconstitutional and most importantly UNworkable point of law.
What you are suggesting is; oh all of us must stop shooting on our own private proprety untill we are all registerd as ranges with all the paperwork crossed and dotted.Lest we be all carried away in a 4am raid with or without light!!!
If such a govt busybody shows up at a reasonable hour and goes on about an illegal range he will be told that until they provide EXACT requirements under the law as to what they want for a range for private use,I will continue to shoot,and build their range between shooting.And I want EXACT plans and dimensions,not somthing made up as they go along,which bis also approved by my local county council.

Stop being so Goddammed correct and literal on everything Sparks!!!!:mad::mad: You should know that this is not law yet and be saying it is is even more irresponsible.You take EVERYTHING So bloody literally!!!:mad:

DO you HONESTLY expect that there will be squads of inspectors roaming the countryside at all hours of the day and night listening for somone out poping off a few rounds in their back 40???They will then storm over private property
busting down locked gates, kicking in doors in good SWAT tradition to find these culprits???Fks sake!! Even the revenue does not that kind of power.

Also on the helpful Garda,what to do in a raid leaflet.Your point being?Apart from advising people on rights they should know anyway.It still points out that a warrent must be present before a search can be conducted,whgich also MUST specify what they are looking for.Plus it applies to the Gardai not some dept of justice offical.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

No ,but everyones else rights will be damaged,as then the "range inspector" can be used as a default excuse to search anyones property for anything under the excuse that they had a "firing range or suspected range".

Indeed.

Well let them try it then.I think it will be laughed out of court,that somone with their own legal firearm was charged with shooting on an illegal range on their own private property,where they were causing no harm to anyone and were shooting foryears.

It wouldn't be laughed out of court CG, it'd be a very open and shut case. You were shooting on an unauthorised range. Defend yourself in court with the "erra, sure I was doing it for ages" defence, and the judge will summarily rule against you and the sentence goes up to a fine of €20,000 and up to seven years in jail. If the CJB passes as is, then that's just how it will be.

PLUS I noticed a MAJOR fault in this .It states with reasonable belif where RIFLE or PISTOL shooting is being carried out.What is missing here boys and girls????

It gets better - if you have a firearms certificate for target shooting, you have to be in a rifle or pistol club. I know most clay pigeon shooters use unlimited licences instead, but there must be a few who have licences for target shooting - do they now have to join rifle or pistol clubs?

Already this proves that this whole concept is a farce

No, it proves that this is a very badly drafted piece of legislation; that however, won't stop it being applicable...

Thats your opinion Sparks on legislation that does not exist yet.:mad:

No, it's fact on existing legislation - resisting a search by a member of the Gardai is illegal. In fact, you're not even meant to do it if the search itself is illegal - if it was, then you deal with it later in court, not in the middle of a field somewheres.

The authorisation for the search itself is the only new bit proposed by the CJB. And if it goes through, that's how things will be set up. Now, you and I both know that whether or not it's ever applied is another story, but it's one that's down to the mores of the individual Gardai and Minister of the day - if they decide to make our lives unpleasant, this bill will give them full authority to do so and we won't have legal grounds to stop them.

I said I,for one[and I dont expect anyone else to help nor am I asking YOU or anyone else to help] on this as we are a most cowed and cowardly race here,except when somone else does somthing,we all jump on the bandwagon and then critisize the doer as how it can be done better,or just perptually bitch and moan.

CG, now is the time to complain. Right now, the legislation is still changable - in a few months, when enacted, it won't be so easy and then it'd be mere bitching and moaning. Right now, however, it's constructive - you're pointing out problems to tackle, instead of sticking your head in the sand and hoping noone goes for your ass.

I will shoot on my property wether the Gardai,range inspectors,the taoiseach or minister for justice or YOU like it or not when this law is enacted, if ever.It is a stupid,illegal,and unconstitutional and most importantly UNworkable point of law.

If it's enacted, and you're caught, it's 7 years and/or €20,000 of a fine, and you lose your firearms licence.
Your call.

What you are suggesting is; oh all of us must stop shooting on our own private proprety untill we are all registerd as ranges with all the paperwork crossed and dotted.Lest we be all carried away in a 4am raid with or without light!!!

No, that's not what I'm suggesting.
It's what the CJB is ordering.
I'm just pointing out the problem, it's others that caused it.

If such a govt busybody shows up at a reasonable hour and goes on about an illegal range he will be told that until they provide EXACT requirements under the law as to what they want for a range for private use,I will continue to shoot,and build their range between shooting.

See Section 4a (13) and (14):
(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.

And I want EXACT plans and dimensions,not somthing made up as they go along,which bis also approved by my local county council.

How much money do you have CG? I understand taking the government to the supreme court is a bit costly...

Stop being so Goddammed correct and literal on everything Sparks!!!!:mad::mad:

CG, we're talking about law here. Ever meet a barrister who wasn't correct and literal? Do you think if we're talking about this area that we shouldn't talk about it the way we can expect to be treated?

DO you HONESTLY expect that there will be squads of inspectors roaming the countryside at all hours of the day and night listening for somone out poping off a few rounds in their back 40?

Nope. Thing is, I also know that 99% of firearms licences are granted without problems, promptly and courteously. It's the 1% that causes all the court cases and hassles and seem to be all we talk about (how's your pistol licence coming, btw?). So in that tradition, let's look at the 1% that will catch the flak from this bill when it's enacted, shall we?

They will then storm over private property busting down locked gates, kicking in doors in good SWAT tradition to find these culprits???Fks sake!! Even the revenue does not that kind of power.

Happened to one shooter out near bray recently. Even had the aerial unit involved. Now he's up in a court in Wicklow for possession of unlicenced ammunition components - namely a few empty brass shells like you'd pick up off the ground in a range, or have mounted in a bullet board on your wall.
Like I said, it's the 1% that get it in the neck...

Also on the helpful Garda,what to do in a raid leaflet.Your point being?Apart from advising people on rights they should know anyway.It still points out that a warrent must be present before a search can be conducted

No, it specifically points out that that's not always true. It also points out that you should never interfere with a Garda search, be it legal or not - you deal with it in a court later.

Plus it applies to the Gardai not some dept of justice offical.

Yes, but it dates from 2003, and we didn't have this proposal to create non-gardai inspectors with the power to search places. When the CJB's enacted, the same points will apply to them as well.

Clare gunner

It wouldn't be laughed out of court CG, it'd be a very open and shut case. You were shooting on an unauthorised range. Defend yourself in court with the "erra, sure I was doing it for ages" defence, and the judge will summarily rule against you and the sentence goes up to a fine of €20,000 and up to seven years in jail. If the CJB passes as is, then that's just how it will be.

Well Judge,I found this individual acting in a suspicious manner on my property at 4am,he was breaking into locked barns,and had clearly trespassed by climbing over a locked gate,and was acting in a very suspicious matter.I rang the Gaurds,however they took yoo long to arrive and I apprehended this individual as he broke into a shed where I store my clay trap.He claimed to be a "range inspector" but refused to provide any ID,nor did he have any on him,nor would he explain what he was doing breaking and entering.
Any Judge who would convict you on the stupidity of a civil servant acting in such a fashion,[as no doubt some will] would be looking at a major appeal.

It gets better - if you have a firearms certificate for target shooting, you have to be in a rifle or pistol club. I know most clay pigeon shooters use unlimited licences instead, but there must be a few who have licences for target shooting - do they now have to join rifle or pistol clubs?

No it just proves the sham of this piece of law.Rifle and pistol,shotgun excluded.Wonder why??I do,I feel that might be another hidden agenda by somone drafting this law.So if I shoot clays on my property with a shotgun I am ok.Suposing I take my 22 out to shoot as well,I now need a range???

No, it proves that this is a very badly drafted piece of legislation; that however, won't stop it being applicable...

Hasty law is bad and unenforceable law [Ben Franklin?] and we have PLENTY of it here.Look,we agree this is stupid law and the way it stands unenforceable as well.

No, it's fact on existing legislation - resisting a search by a member of the Gardai is illegal. In fact, you're not even meant to do it if the search itself is illegal - if it was, then you deal with it later in court, not in the middle of a field somewheres.

Not talking about the Gardai,I am talking about some non appointed civillan beuracrat coming onto your property acting like a Gestapo thug.



Err,isnt it going to be a precondition for established commerical ranges???That they must be inspected.Plus again the problem there must be a standardisation of ranges to make them acceptable to planning depts of your local council.Or the planning depts must issue the dimensions and requirements that THEY find satisfactory.So who will be more acceptable Govt or CC planning dept??

CG, now is the time to complain. Right now, the legislation is still changable - in a few months, when enacted, it won't be so easy and then it'd be mere bitching and moaning. Right now, however, it's constructive - you're pointing out problems to tackle, instead of sticking your head in the sand and hoping noone goes for your ass.

What do you think I am doing???I have already raised my objections,but will we be listened to any further??And to who as well??

Plus on this point has anyone complained about the restrictions on calibres,kinetic energy,etc etc????

If it's enacted, and you're caught, it's 7 years and/or €20,000 of a fine, and you lose your firearms licence.
Your call.

Fine ,Within 24 hours of release I'll be better armed than I ever was liscensed and without the hassle of an annual liscense as well.:rolleyes: :mad: Remember those are MAX fines not first offs.

See Section 4a (13) and (14):
(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.

A field out in the middle of nowhere with a hill backstop,
[ii]me
[iii]???HTF do you manage your own private property?
[iv]Natural hill,a dozen tyres filled with earth,shoot, police ammo cases,let cattle graze.
[v] everything from 22 up to 44 mag if possible
[vi] err,German hunting liscense,qualifications in rifle shotgun,hand gun ,smg,up to International school of bodygaurding instructor level.30 years hands on experiance thats for starters.Proably not good enough due to the fact it isnt IRISH and we are the BEST at everything these days.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Does this show how stupid this is ???And when you read this legislation closer it is aimed at clubs,not individuals[altho it could be used that way,but I would frankly doubt it].Due to the hassle factor,and the idiocy factor of taking it to court.

How much money do you have CG? I understand taking the government to the supreme court is a bit costly...

It is indeed,BUT how much money do you put on your principles and freedoms.?????Plus this can be taken to Europe as well.

CG, we're talking about law here. Ever meet a barrister who wasn't correct and literal? Do you think if we're talking about this area that we shouldn't talk about it the way we can expect to be treated?

A Hell of alot of them Sparks!!! I really dont know what the big deal is in becoming one,or why they have this God like status here..All of them that I have ever met suffer from a great Irish disease.The inability to [1]listen [2] to take on a different opinion when the facts should tell them they are barking up the wrong tree [3]to grasp basic facts somtimes of their own cases.[4] Be able to mumble so incoherently [and expensively]that even if I was judge I would be telling them to speak up for themselves.They talk and argue so obtusely that no one ,even themselves I think dont know what they are on about.And I think that is their skill,confuse the opposition so there is a doubt of guilt or innocence

Nope. Thing is, I also know that 99% of firearms licences are granted without problems, promptly and courteously.

[jim Carey mode here ]RRRRRREEEELLLLLLLYYYYYYY?:eek: Maybe in your part of Ireland not down here.

It's the 1% that causes all the court cases and hassles and seem to be all we talk about (how's your pistol licence coming, btw?). So in that tradition, let's look at the 1% that will catch the flak from this bill when it's enacted, shall we?

Nowhere fast,thanks for asking.I have now discoverd that the Super is now using his poistion and power to enforce his personal dislike of firearms to decide policy.In other words abusing his power and lying thru his teeth.Claiming he is issuing it but it is stuck in "red tape"[of his own making].Checked the Park they havent any record of it even being sent up to them.Again,the reason I would like some sort of legal help fund to be able to advise further on this type of a case.I cant get a name out of anyone in the shooting bodies who a good and competant lawyer is that they use for their high court cases. With that sort of help you might as well go it solo.

Happened to one shooter out near bray recently. Even had the aerial unit involved. Now he's up in a court in Wicklow for possession of unlicenced ammunition components - namely a few empty brass shells like you'd pick up off the ground in a range, or have mounted in a bullet board on your wall.
Like I said, it's the 1% that get it in the neck...

Thought they had sorted that out by now,and again this is just a harrasment case.I hope who is stuck with this really gets full support from the shooting bodies on this for legal defence,which I belive we should have is a legal body to fight these type of stupid cases.Plus I hope he and the press makes a big song&dance about the waste of taxpayers money with this nonsense in the courts and using an air support unit.

No, it specifically points out that that's not always true. It also points out that you should never interfere with a Garda search, be it legal or not - you deal with it in a court later.

True,but good luck to you trying to prove this in a court as well.Plus as I said I didnt intend to interfere with the Gardai,but with somone who tresspasses at 4am without giving me proper notice and acts suspiciously on private property without IDing himself. C'mon you must admit anyone acting like that is leaving themselves opent to getting in trouble??

Yes, but it dates from 2003, and we didn't have this proposal to create non-gardai inspectors with the power to search places. When the CJB's enacted, the same points will apply to them as well

So then they will be under the same constraints as the Gardai. IE needing to ID themselves properly,being under the peep o day rule,needing the Gardai to be with a warrent to search private houses,etc[As only the Gardai can serve warrents to search a private dwelling].

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Well Judge,I found this individual acting in a suspicious manner on my property at 4am,he was breaking into locked barns,and had clearly trespassed by climbing over a locked gate,and was acting in a very suspicious matter.I rang the Gaurds,however they took yoo long to arrive and I apprehended this individual as he broke into a shed where I store my clay trap.He claimed to be a "range inspector" but refused to provide any ID,nor did he have any on him,nor would he explain what he was doing breaking and entering.
Any Judge who would convict you on the stupidity of a civil servant acting in such a fashion,[as no doubt some will] would be looking at a major appeal.

Indeed. Except that that's not what would happen CG. Section 4b(5):
(5) The Minister shall issue to each inspector the warrant of appointment, or a copy of it, for production, on request, when an inspector is exercising any power conferred by this section.
This means that the civil servant was carrying ID which was a legal justification for his actions. Also, if he doesn't come knocking at a regular hour, you can be relatively certain that he'll not be alone, and if it's thought that you might resist inspection, you might well end up having a nice cup of tea with the ERU while he goes about his job.

Rifle and pistol,shotgun excluded.Wonder why??I do,I feel that might be another hidden agenda by somone drafting this law.So if I shoot clays on my property with a shotgun I am ok.Suposing I take my 22 out to shoot as well,I now need a range???

I think it'd be a different story; specifically, if you're target shooting with a shotgun and not in a rifle or pistol club, you could (note the difference between could and would, but also remember the AG's ruling on under-16s shooting clay pigeons) be charged under Section 3 (13)(a):
(13) A person who—
(a) knowingly gives false or misleading information to an issuing person in relation to an application for a firearm certificate or for its renewal
ie. you said you wanted the shotgun for hunting and were using it for target shooting on an unauthorised range. It all comes down to who's using the law against you and how badly they want to make your life a misery. That's why it's such a bad bill - there aren't any checks or balances in it in key areas like this.

Look,we agree this is stupid law and the way it stands unenforceable as well.

We agree on the first part. We differ on the second - I dislike having cups of tea in my kitchen with the ERU at four in the morning.

Not talking about the Gardai,I am talking about some non appointed civillan beuracrat coming onto your property acting like a Gestapo thug.

Except that that civil servant will be appointed (by the Minister under Section 4b) and warranted to inspect any place he suspects has a range.

Err,isnt it going to be a precondition for established commerical ranges? That they must be inspected.

Yes, according to this Bill, every range in the country, private, public, commercial or otherwise, will have to be inspected. And from how it's written, I think that's going to include zeroing your rifle for hunting as well.

Plus again the problem there must be a standardisation of ranges to make them acceptable to planning depts of your local council.Or the planning depts must issue the dimensions and requirements that THEY find satisfactory.So who will be more acceptable Govt or CC planning dept??

Government first, then CC planning department. And if you can't satisfy both, you're off to court.

What do you think I am doing?

I don't know, you've not said!

I have already raised my objections,but will we be listened to any further??And to who as well??

Any TD on the committee at this point I think, and then any Seanad member, and then the Seanad select committee, and then the President and if we get to the Act stage, the High Court and then the Supreme Court

Plus on this point has anyone complained about the restrictions on calibres,kinetic energy,etc etc????

What restrictions? They won't be announced until after the bill is made law...

Fine ,Within 24 hours of release I'll be better armed than I ever was liscensed and without the hassle of an annual liscense as well.:rolleyes: :mad:

I think broadcasting that in public will lead to lots more cups of tea CG.

Remember those are MAX fines not first offs.

Indeed, but there's nothing in there that says they have to be avoided on a first offence. It's just quite likely, depending on the severity of the consequences of your non-compliance. If someone is shooting tin cans off a wall and because of unsafe shooting practises, kills someone in the process, expect not to get off with a warning. If it's just paperwork though, I wouldn't expect to see much in the way of punishment past a committment to comply in future.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

[iii]???HTF do you manage your own private property?

Fence it off so noone can wander in from behind the backstop or the sides of the range accidentally.

[iv]Natural hill,a dozen tyres filled with earth,shoot, police ammo cases,let cattle graze.

CC planning department is first going to ask "How do you deal with lead pollution from the bullets?". Don't forget that there are EU regs on this coming into force now.

Proably not good enough due to the fact it isnt IRISH

It's surprising though, how not only the government but us shooters do the same thing. For instance, how many Irish shooting associations recognise GBTSF or NSRA qualifications?

It is indeed,BUT how much money do you put on your principles and freedoms.?????Plus this can be taken to Europe as well.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it - if we have to, we ought to - I'm saying that this is going to cost a lot of money. And as a result, we'd have to do it as a group to save costs and to pick the test case carefully, which means an otherwise exemplery case. Which means, when someone comes knocking at 0400, you don't get bolshie on them, you just take notes and call the soliciter.

I really dont know what the big deal is in becoming one,or why they have this God like status here.

It's not them; it's their job. It decides who wins and loses and that decides how the law is interpreted in the courts. Remember Holmes' saying - "This is not a court of justice, this is a court of law".

Maybe in your part of Ireland not down here.

But your part of Ireland isn't the whole, is it? Besides which, my point was that even though it's likely that this bill won't be abused in the majority of cases, the potential for abuse in the minority of cases is unbelievably high.

Nowhere fast,thanks for asking.I have now discoverd that the Super is now using his poistion and power to enforce his personal dislike of firearms to decide policy.

Get used to it. If the CJB goes through, the Commissioner will be able to issue guidelines; but the definitions section says that "Commissioner" actually means "Commissioner or any garda of the rank of superintendent or higher". So it won't be a single superintendent on his own anymore, it'll be a super with the weight of legally-sanctioned guidelines behind him. Far harder to take to court successfully.

Thought they had sorted that out by now,and again this is just a harrasment case.

Last I heard, transferred from Bray to Wicklow courts as the Bray judge didn't think himself a firearms expert...

True,but good luck to you trying to prove this in a court as well.

Got a disposable camera in your car in case someone drives into you and you need to record the damage for the insurance company?
Same idea here. Get a camcorder if you're worried. If the knock on the door comes, start recording.

Plus as I said I didnt intend to interfere with the Gardai,but with somone who tresspasses at 4am without giving me proper notice and acts suspiciously on private property without IDing himself. C'mon you must admit anyone acting like that is leaving themselves opent to getting in trouble??

Nope. It's illegal to assault someone, remember? You have to challange them if you intend to stop them or chuck them off your land, you're not allowed sneak up and hit them from behind. And if he sees you, he'll ID himself. Up to that point, according to this bill, he's not under any obligation to inform you that you're being inspected.

So then they will be under the same constraints as the Gardai. IE needing to ID themselves properly,being under the peep o day rule,needing the Gardai to be with a warrent to search private houses,etc[As only the Gardai can serve warrents to search a private dwelling].

Not the case if this goes through. They will be authorised by their appointment to enter any place (which is defined to include dwellings) at any time and without prior notice.

Quillo

While all this point by point debate is informative, it's not really going to get us anywhere without some action.

The only action a politician appears to notice is one that costs him or her votes. Strong lobbies have changed all manner of legislation in this country but as long a gun owners remain silent, the anti-gun movement will continue to legislate firearm ownership out of existence.

I'd love to start writing to my local representatives about all the points I've read about on here recently but I have no idea where to start as so much of the proposed legislation appears outrageous.

Could someone or organisation with a good over all understanding of the situation prepare a draft letter that us lesser mortals could use to harass our local representatives with ?

Are there actually any pro-gun ownership politicians out there ? Any that shoot ?

I particularly like the signature "When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults" used by sidneyreilly...... seems we are headed that way.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=Sparks]Indeed. Except that that's not what would happen CG. Section 4b(5):
(5) The Minister shall issue to each inspector the warrant of appointment, or a copy of it, for production, on request, when an inspector is exercising any power conferred by this section.
This means that the civil servant was carrying ID which was a legal justification for his actions. Also, if he doesn't come knocking at a regular hour, you can be relatively certain that he'll not be alone, and if it's thought that you might resist inspection, you might well end up having a nice cup of tea with the ERU while he goes about his job.

See my note yet again Re peep o day law.Logically the first step will be to knock.Not go sneaking around the place in the middle of the night.Plus as a good beuraccrat,it will be out of working hours and therefore very expensive for the govt to employ people to do so.

I

think it'd be a different story; specifically, if you're target shooting with a shotgun and not in a rifle or pistol club, you could (note the difference between could and would, but also remember the AG's ruling on under-16s shooting clay pigeons) be charged under Section 3 (13)(a):
(13) A person who—
(a) knowingly gives false or misleading information to an issuing person in relation to an application for a firearm certificate or for its renewal
ie. you said you wanted the shotgun for hunting and were using it for target shooting on an unauthorised range. It all comes down to who's using the law against you and how badly they want to make your life a misery. That's why it's such a bad bill - there aren't any checks or balances in it in key areas like this.

Point being that the act states Rifle or pistol ranges and NOT shotguns.Or mentions anything re clay ranges.

We agree on the first part. We differ on the second - I dislike having cups of tea in my kitchen with the ERU at four in the morning.

Hmmmm,wouldnt be too worried about that ,considering the "elite" [snigger snigger] ERU couldnt break into a four room house at 3AM in Abbylara to arrest John Carthy,because of operational difficulties.Bunch of clowns!

Except that that civil servant will be appointed (by the Minister under Section 4b) and warranted to inspect any place he suspects has a range

.
Good,then he will be obliged to act like a civil servant and arrive normal busisness or reasonable hours.

Yes, according to this Bill, every range in the country, private, public, commercial or otherwise, will have to be inspected. And from how it's written, I think that's going to include zeroing your rifle for hunting as well.

And you and they expect this to be done by when????

Government first, then CC planning department. And if you can't satisfy both, you're off to court.

What I am am saying is who if they issue plans for a range overrides whom?If it is a govt approved set of plans,can the CC object?


I

don't know, you've not said!

Pointed it out to my TD,and he is proably taking this in one ear and out the other by nowanything I say on shooting matters.

Any TD on the committee at this point I think, and then any Seanad member, and then the Seanad select committee, and then the President and if we get to the Act stage, the High Court and then the Supreme Court

And we have enough pull for this?This is what I am worried about on this as well.Maybe this lot are saying"them feckin shooters,never happy,sure ram it tru now lads,they can like it or lump it."

What restrictions? They won't be announced until after the bill is made law...

And so why isnt anyone complaining about this obscure legislation popint as well????

I think broadcasting that in public will lead to lots more cups of tea CG.

What common knowledge???Want to get the best contacts for illegal arms suppliers go to the nick for a govt paid holiday.HEAR YE !!HEAR YE !HEAR YE!

Vegeta

Quillo wrote:

While all this point by point debate is informative, it's not really going to get us anywhere without some action.

The only action a politician appears to notice is one that costs him or her votes. Strong lobbies have changed all manner of legislation in this country but as long a gun owners remain silent, the anti-gun movement will continue to legislate firearm ownership out of existence.

I'd love to start writing to my local representatives about all the points I've read about on here recently but I have no idea where to start as so much of the proposed legislation appears outrageous.

Could someone or organisation with a good over all understanding of the situation prepare a draft letter that us lesser mortals could use to harass our local representatives with ?

Are there actually any pro-gun ownership politicians out there ? Any that shoot ?

I particularly like the signature "When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults" used by sidneyreilly...... seems we are headed that way.

I agree here, I am very worried about what we as a shooting community are going to be forced to put up with if half this legislation gets into law. My main concerns so far are if they just go and ban any calibre they see fit and lack of definition on so many issues.

Sparks

Quillo wrote:

While all this point by point debate is informative, it's not really going to get us anywhere without some action.

Gotta inform people before they want action though Quillo. And since the shooting associations seem to be all saying that this Bill is a great success, I get the feeling that you won't see much action from them on this

The only action a politician appears to notice is one that costs him or her votes. Strong lobbies have changed all manner of legislation in this country but as long a gun owners remain silent, the anti-gun movement will continue to legislate firearm ownership out of existence.
I'd love to start writing to my local representatives about all the points I've read about on here recently but I have no idea where to start as so much of the proposed legislation appears outrageous.

Doubtful they'd read all of it, but pick the part that affects you most personally, and start there. List three or four things that affect you and send the letter off. If you don't get all the problems covered, don't worry - odds are he/she won't read a long letter all the way through anyway, and it'd be better to get a thousand short letters than four or five long ones.

The guy that I'm writing to first is a Senator who's also a shooter and spoke during the initial Committee presentations during the NARGC's presentation, Patrick Moylan. His address is :

Patrick Moylan,
Harbour Road,
Banagher,
Co. Offaly

(That's public domain information, by the way, from the Fianna Fail website).

Could someone or organisation with a good over all understanding of the situation prepare a draft letter that us lesser mortals could use to harass our local representatives with ?

These would be the associations that are either deferring the problem to someone else or else saying that this Bill is a good thing for the sport?!?

Are there actually any pro-gun ownership politicians out there ? Any that shoot ?

There may be one or two, but I've only found one so far, the Senator listed above. However, some issues, like the Firearms Range Inspectors, are so widely abusive that they apply equally to non-shooters.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=Sparks]Fence it off so noone can wander in from behind the backstop or the sides of the range accidentally.

Was done 200 years ago by a 8ft all around the property.

CC planning department is first going to ask "How do you deal with lead pollution from the bullets?". Don't forget that there are EU regs on this coming into force now.

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

It's surprising though, how not only the government but us shooters do the same thing. For instance, how many Irish shooting associations recognise GBTSF or NSRA qualifications?


I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it - if we have to, we ought to - I'm saying that this is going to cost a lot of money. And as a result, we'd have to do it as a group to save costs and to pick the test case carefully, which means an otherwise exemplery case. Which means, when someone comes knocking at 0400, you don't get bolshie on them, you just take notes and call the soliciter.

It's not them; it's their job. It decides who wins and loses and that decides how the law is interpreted in the courts. Remember Holmes' saying - "This is not a court of justice, this is a court of law".

And there is also a saying"The law is an ass".And as for their doing their jobs,as I said I assumed you require some sort of knowledge of the law for this work,but I suppose if you are dealing with gurriers all day ,you can assume you are above all of them as well.

But your part of Ireland isn't the whole, is it? Besides which, my point was that even though it's likely that this bill won't be abused in the majority of cases, the potential for abuse in the minority of cases is unbelievably high.

Get used to it. If the CJB goes through, the Commissioner will be able to issue guidelines; but the definitions section says that "Commissioner" actually means "Commissioner or any garda of the rank of superintendent or higher". So it won't be a single superintendent on his own anymore, it'll be a super with the weight of legally-sanctioned guidelines behind him. Far harder to take to court successfully.

What?Gardai making up the law as they see fit???Nothing new there.
Thought there was somthing about personal opinions are not to influence the upholding of the law....Oh sorry...I forgot this is Ireland.

Last I heard, transferred from Bray to Wicklow courts as the Bray judge didn't think himself a firearms expert...

Good for him,a wise man on the bench for a change.

Got a disposable camera in your car in case someone drives into you and you need to record the damage for the insurance company?
Same idea here. Get a camcorder if you're worried. If the knock on the door comes, start recording.

Sparks,Sparks,Sparks, I was taking you seriously there for awhile.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.Not going to happen,.Ask any of the Shannon anti war protestors,how many times they have been done over by local Gardai in a public place too I might add.

Nope. It's illegal to assault someone, remember? You have to challange them if you intend to stop them or chuck them off your land, you're not allowed sneak up and hit them from behind. And if he sees you, he'll ID himself. Up to that point, according to this bill, he's not under any obligation to inform you that you're being inspected.

There is nothing in law that says you cannot sneak up on somone to challange them,and actually it is the most logical thing to do from a tactical saftey point.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,until I have contacted the police or his dept to verify who he is.Remember he is the one caught tresspassing in suspicious circumstances in the middle of the night,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? Wouldnt have happened if he had shown up in the daylight hours where he could have seen that .Plus under owners and occupiers liability act,I can disclaim any responsibility for him injuring himself as he came uninvited onto the property.

Not the case if this goes through. They will be authorised by their appointment to enter any place (which is defined to include dwellings) at any time and without prior notice

So you are saying that they will have more power than the Gardai or revenue and customs men.That should make life most intresting in Ireland then even for the non shooting public.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

See my note yet again Re peep o day law.

As an aside CG, I've been trying to find a source for that law and haven't had any success - can you post where it's actually noted?

Logically the first step will be to knock.Not go sneaking around the place in the middle of the night.

That wouldn't be logical if you suspect someone of surriptious criminal behaviour - you'd try to catch them in the act instead. And the inspector's existance presupposes, as an unstated axiom, that whomever he's inspecting under 4b(4) will be conducting criminal behaviour surriptiously.

Point being that the act states Rifle or pistol ranges and NOT shotguns.Or mentions anything re clay ranges.

Nope, it doesn't state rifle or pistol ranges. It states rifle or pistol clubs and makes a distinction elsewhere between clubs and ranges (and wants both to be seperately authorised).

Hmmmm,wouldnt be too worried about that ,considering the "elite" [snigger snigger] ERU couldnt break into a four room house at 3AM in Abbylara to arrest John Carthy,because of operational difficulties.Bunch of clowns!

I'm more thinking that I'll be asleep and they'll have MP5s. And I don't want a criminal record, which puts me in with 99% of the rest of the populace CG.

Good,then he will be obliged to act like a civil servant and arrive normal busisness or reasonable hours.

Again, the Bill says, explicitly, "at any time and without prior notice". Reasonableness is not only not mentioned; it is implicitly ruled out.

And you and they expect this to be done by when????

Yes and me! Why do you think I'm so pissed off at this piece of shoddy drafting?
And they expect it to be done before you fire your next shot!

What I am am saying is who if they issue plans for a range overrides whom?If it is a govt approved set of plans,can the CC object?

If the Government issue plans (which doesn't seem likely as they're expensive to draw up and would require identical ranges anywhere anyone shot - regardless of the lie of the land, or the discipline being shot), then they would override the CC; but that argument would be between the DoJ and the CC in question.

[qutoe]Pointed it out to my TD,and he is proably taking this in one ear and out the other by nowanything I say on shooting matters.[/quote]
Keep plugging it anyway. If enough complaints come in, stuff does get done.

And we have enough pull for this?

Possibly not, but after all the posturing and dodgy press releases and articles in magazines asking if the DoJ has "lost it" and all the nearly militant antagonism on our part, I fear it's too late to take the consensus road with the current Minister. Which is a reprehensible situation to be in and both sides are to blame.

And so why isnt anyone complaining about this obscure legislation popint as well????

They are, in the Dail. The fact that the amendments in the second stage were three times the size of the original bill was the source of extensive comments. But as you said, the government can ram the bill through regardless.

Vegeta

at the end of the day if a "range inspector" is looking for a range on your land (which you own and is therefore your responability) or trying to catch you out firing on your own land. Why would he do it in the middle of the night????

The range will still be there in the morning and you wont be using it at night anyway so if he did call in the middle of the night he better be knocking on the door first or else he is a very silly man.

The problem here is for the "range inspector" to identify himself he has to be asked first and I don't fancy asking a stranger lurking round my house in the middle of the night who he is, if it indeed was a thief you'd feel very silly for calling out to him and bringing unwanted attention onto yourself. Firstly I'd ring the garda (who wouldn't get there in time anyway if it were a robber) and secondly i'd be waking my 3 brothers and getting hurleys, then i'd go ask who he was