Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Sparks

Now watching Sinn Fein complain that the Minister hasn't taken enough guns out of the hands of criminals.

My head hurts...

Sparks

Amendment 115 defeated.
Amendment 116 defeated. General vote called for in response to the defeat.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Now watching Sinn Fein complain that the Minister hasn't taken enough guns out of the hands of criminals.

My head hurts...

Thats funny in a peverse way.Considering SF and it's private army have been the cause of 30 plus years of greif for Irish shooters.
Fair dues to you Sparks for staying on this all day.:D

Sparks

Amendment 116 defeated again summarily as less than 10 deputies supported the challange to the vote.

The debate on the CJB has adjourned again and the FG Home Defence bill is now being debated until 2030, when the CJB debate will again resume, most likely with finishing up the voting on amendments 117-120, 129-159 and 162-167, but I think discussion on those has concluded, so the next discussion would be on stuff to do with us again (the amendment from the Minister saying that gardai don't have to tell us we were rejected for an application for a firearms certificate).

Vegeta

Sparks thanks for wading through that and posting here, i keep comin back every few minutes to read the updates.

Sparks

No problem guys, I was going to be watching it anyway

newby.204

When its finished, i dont sappose you could post exactly what got through, i.e. what is actually going to affect us???

Sparks

newby.204 wrote:

When its finished, i dont sappose you could post exactly what got through, i.e. what is actually going to affect us???

I was planning on doing so Newby, but don't forget - what goes through today can still be amended in the Seanad from Friday to the end of next week (at which point, the final version will be fixed and sent to the President to be signed into law). In fact, it will be changed at least slightly - the Minister wants to use the Seanad committee stage to fix the requirement that an applicant be resident in the State so that tourist shooters won't be excluded (as we were wondering earlier if they would).

They've resumed the CJB debate just now btw (this will be the last session, and must end tonight at 2230).

Sparks

117 passed, 118 withdrawn, 119 passed and 120 passed.

Sparks

122 being discussed now (that's the one that means we wouldn't be told if we were refused an application). Howlin making the point that this is not a citizen-friendly way of doing things and that it would be abused.

Sparks

(121 will probably be dropped, it's ill-briefed and the minister doesn't think it's needed).

Point being made that if there's no written response from the super, how can you go to court?

Sparks

Minister making the point again that we don't have a constitutional right to have a firearm. Not sure how that applies, mind.

Sparks

Minister saying what if the super asks for a psych report and it doesn't arrive in the three months. Super should have the ability to not respond and the applicant won't be ill-affected by it?

Much emphasis being made that we don't have a right to bear arms and the Minister doesn't want us to have that right and that the Minister wants us going to the District Court if the application goes awry. He says it costs no money because you don't need a barrister or soliciter, you can represent yourself...

Sparks

The minister is saying the default mode is to refuse the application and he wants it that way. Howlin pointing out that this is all not the point, that noone's looking for the right to bear arms, or that the default mode should be to grant the cert, but that the applicant has an entitlement to fair treatment.

jaycee

Just wondering ,

Would it be a fair assesment of the progress to say that basically anything that Mr M didn't originally have in ... got rejected !

With that being the case we now seem to be in a position where any type of shooting or any shooter can be banned/prevented/not-allowed /ignored without further recourse to the courts and without appeal .

I may be wrong , but it kinda looks like that.

That being the case , wasn't it all a pretty cynical and pointless exercise.
We appear to have witnessed a rubber stamp being applied to all and any conditions with regard to ranges, calibres , firearm types and conditions of use. Most telling was the outright rejection of even making the conditions that will be applied to us available.

It was distressing to see the amount of our elected representatives who emptied out of the Dáil chamber while the pro's and cons of various proposals were discussed and explained , and then shuffled back in like pet seals to vote on important aspects of our nations laws without having considered them. What a bunch of losers ..!

A very bad day for the principals of democracy and free speech.

Sparks

Minister now saying that a firearms cert is a Big Deal, and therefore this is justified. And no, it makes no more sense when you're listening to it live...

Sparks

Amendment 121 defeated.
Amendment 122 passed over protest.
Amendment 123 passed.

Amendment 124, 125 being discussed (that you have to have proof of identity when handing in firearms) - both passed.

Amendment 126 passed.
Amendment 127 passed.
Amendment 128 passed.
Amendment 129 defeated.
Amendment 130 withdrawn.
Amendment 131 defeated.
Amendment 132 passed.
Amendment 133 passed.
Amendment 134 passed.
Amendment 135 defeated.
Amendment 136 discussed.
Amendment 137 withdrawn.
Amendment 138 defeated.
Amendment 139 passed.
Amendment 140 passed.
Amendment 141 passed.
Amendment 142 defeated.
Amendment 143 withdrawn.
Amendment 144 defeated.
Amendment 145 passed.
Amendment 146 passed.
Amendment 147 passed.
Amendment 148 passed.
Amendment 149 defeated.
Amendment 150 defeated.
Amendment 151 passed.
Amendment 152 passed.
Amendment 153 passed.
Amendment 154 passed.
Amendment 155 passed.
Amendment 156 passed.
Amendment 157 passed.
Amendment 158 defeated. And here O'Snodaigh's called a votail, possibly just to get a break

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

Just wondering ,
Would it be a fair assesment of the progress to say that basically anything that Mr M didn't originally have in ... got rejected !

With the exception of amendment 93, where he was worn down, yes.

With that being the case we now seem to be in a position where any type of shooting or any shooter can be banned/prevented/not-allowed /ignored without further recourse to the courts and without appeal .

Well, almost. Any kind of firearm, yes. Any shooter... well, yes, but you'd be able to appeal. If you had a lot of cash. And moxy.

That being the case , wasn't it all a pretty cynical and pointless exercise.

Close enough. Which is why I'm wondering why the shooting bodies are saying this is a great bill.

It was distressing to see the amount of our elected representatives who emptied out of the Dáil chamber while the pro's and cons of various proposals were discussed and explained , and then shuffled back in like pet seals to vote on important aspects of our nations laws without having considered them. What a bunch of losers ..!

Very much so, but at least we had a well-briefed deputy speaking for us against the minister this time. Though the clay pigeon discussion was woeful...



Now voting on 158... and 158 defeated, 86 to 11.

Sparks

Amendment 159 defeated.
Amendment 160 passed.
Amendment 161 passed.
Amendment 162 defeated.
Amendment 163 withdrawn.
Amendment 164 defeated.
Amendment 165 passed.
Amendment 166 passed.
Amendment 167 passed.
Amendment 168 passed.

And that's it, all of the Firearms Act amendments have now been decided upon.

Hauk

So, with all of these acts passed, can I assume that the part concerning the regulation of less than one joules systems has been passed?

Thanks

Hauk

newby.204

Sparks wrote:

I was planning on doing so Newby, but don't forget - what goes through today can still be amended in the Seanad from Friday to the end of next week (at which point, the final version will be fixed and sent to the President to be signed into law). In fact, it will be changed at least slightly - the Minister wants to use the Seanad committee stage to fix the requirement that an applicant be resident in the State so that tourist shooters won't be excluded (as we were wondering earlier if they would).

They've resumed the CJB debate just now btw (this will be the last session, and must end tonight at 2230).

So essentially, i dont quite grasp the process mind, a minister etc can still change what has passed in stage one today, so there is still hope, if not much???

Sparks

That one wasn't contested Hauk, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.

Hauk

Cool, thanks man!

Sparks

newby.204 wrote:

So essentially, i dont quite grasp the process mind, a minister etc can still change what has passed in stage one today, so there is still hope, if not much???

Well, today was the Report Stage of the bill, not stage one Newby, but yes, some hope but not much. Worth chasing though, and that's the next thing.


BTW, the process goes First Stage (reading the original proposed bill and calling for debate), Second Stage (actually debating the bill as proposed), Committee Stage (where changes can be made - here the changes were four times the size of the original bill, but that's really unusual and most are calling it a serious abuse), and Report Stage (where the final version of the bill comes back for debate). Those stages are gone through in the Dail and then in the Seanad, and then if passed, it goes to the President. She can either sign it in or challange it - it's not likely that this President would challange it, but Mary Robinson did so quite often- and then it's law, and is enacted with statutory instruments.

newby.204

Sparks wrote:

Well, today was the Report Stage of the bill, not stage one Newby, but yes, some hope but not much. Worth chasing though, and that's the next thing.


BTW, the process goes First Stage (reading the original proposed bill and calling for debate), Second Stage (actually debating the bill as proposed), Committee Stage (where changes can be made - here the changes were four times the size of the original bill, but that's really unusual and most are calling it a serious abuse), and Report Stage (where the final version of the bill comes back for debate). Those stages are gone through in the Dail and then in the Seanad, and then if passed, it goes to the President. She can either sign it in or challange it - it's not likely that this President would challange it, but Mary Robinson did so quite often- and then it's law, and is enacted with statutory instruments.

Thanks for the clarity, like lookin into a mucky puddle when it comes to irish law!!!!!

civdef

Dont forget that many of the provisions that affect shooters will also require ministerial orders, like the declaration of certain weapon types as restricted.

newby.204

civdef wrote:

Dont forget that many of the provisions that affect shooters will also require ministerial orders, like the declaration of certain weapon types as restricted.

MUCKY PUDDLE!!!!!!!!!

Sparks

The bill has overrun it's debate time by eight minutes, so they're putting the full Bill to a vote. There are over 230 amendments that haven't been considered, so there's debate, and a general vote has been called by, well, everyone

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Dont forget that many of the provisions that affect shooters will also require ministerial orders, like the declaration of certain weapon types as restricted.

Very true. If I can swipe something from my other area of expertise , the bill is like a unix device driver - it provides mechanisms, not policy.

Trouble is, we've a pretty good idea of how shooter-friendly the minister is and what his policies are likely to be like

Sparks

The vote on passing the Bill was to pass it, 101 to 14. The bill now goes to the Seanad and the Dail is recessed until the morning.

So. How does it feel to get shafted with a haddock, having seen it coming over a year away?