Criminal Justice Bill 2004

whupass

ta people

two more questions though

1, will guns bought next month be under the new bill?

2, any idea what effects this will have on paintball?

Rovi

While we're asking 'when will?' questions, has anyone any thoughts or information on when the Training Certificates might become available?

These would have a considerable influence on the regularity of my range attendance, and Brownie Points may even be earned, rather then deducted

Sparks

whupass wrote:

1, will guns bought next month be under the new bill?

In August? Probably not. No-one knows for sure, it'll depend on when the Bill is enacted and brought into force with SIs. And we'll have to wait a few months to see what gets restricted and so forth. However, the Gardai are already moving on some parts of the bill, notably the range certification, so I wouldn't expect them to be hanging about twiddling their thumbs.

2, any idea what effects this will have on paintball?

What's the muzzle energy of a paintball gun?

Rovi wrote:

While we're asking 'when will?' questions, has anyone any thoughts or information on when the Training Certificates might become available?
These would have a considerable influence on the regularity of my range attendance, and Brownie Points may even be earned, rather then deducted

Best guess - september/october. ish. I'd be very surprised if they weren't in place and being issued by December.

17HMR

Sparks wrote:

In August? Probably not. No-one knows for sure, it'll depend on when the Bill is enacted and brought into force with SIs. And we'll have to wait a few months to see what gets restricted and so forth. However, the Gardai are already moving on some parts of the bill, notably the range certification, so I wouldn't expect them to be hanging about twiddling their thumbs.

Jaysus.... how can the move on something that's yet to be defined and inspected by inspectors yet to be appointed ? (Not that I'm surprised.... )

Clare gunner

17HMR wrote:

Jaysus.... how can the move on something that's yet to be defined and inspected by inspectors yet to be appointed ? (Not that I'm surprised.... )

Called exceeding their authortihy.And they should be politely informed of this fact if they come around mouthing off about the new "law".A simple fact of stating that it is not law yet,and when it is so,as ratified by the dail,senad and president.You will be only too happy to assist them then.

Sparks

There's already a court case pending on that one 17, or so I've heard. Basicly, they came out to various ranges to inspect them. Most cooperated (since poking a bear with a sharp stick is not a wise course of action), including WTSC. It's a pretty thorough look-over, with maps made of the actual range itself, and the inspectors that arrived were fairly well-informed and knew their firearms. Safety was the main concern, and the competence of the shooters on the range was stressed as being the major point of concern in that regard.

Sparks

Gotta love the Seanad.

17HMR

Sparks wrote:

There's already a court case pending on that one 17, or so I've heard. Basicly, they came out to various ranges to inspect them. Most cooperated (since poking a bear with a sharp stick is not a wise course of action), including WTSC. It's a pretty thorough look-over, with maps made of the actual range itself, and the inspectors that arrived were fairly well-informed and knew their firearms. Safety was the main concern, and the competence of the shooters on the range was stressed as being the major point of concern in that regard.

Sounds like an awful waste of Garda time and resources, chasing up stuff that doesn't have legislation in place to back it up.

Is this just sabre-rattling on their part ?
An exercise in slapping down all those gun-totin' loonies that had the audacity to challenge their "interpretation" of the law in the courts ?

civdef

It could also be an effort to "hit the ground running" when the legislation comes into force, so that the legwork on inspecting and approving ranges is already done, and no nasty delays ensue.

Soemtimes I think we make take the pessimism a bit to far here...

Sparks

17HMR wrote:

Sounds like an awful waste of Garda time and resources, chasing up stuff that doesn't have legislation in place to back it up.

I think civ hit closer to the mark to be honest. The Gardai can see the writing on the wall and are trying to get a running start.

Is this just sabre-rattling on their part ?
An exercise in slapping down all those gun-totin' loonies that had the audacity to challenge their "interpretation" of the law in the courts ?

I think that's what the entire CJB actually is to be honest.

civdef wrote:

Soemtimes I think we make take the pessimism a bit to far here...

Sometimes I think we don't take it far enough!

Clare gunner

[

I think civ hit closer to the mark to be honest. The Gardai can see the writing on the wall and are trying to get a running start.

TBH apart from the very few Gardai who do try and carry out their duty without hindering us and the very few politicos who support us[Kudos here to Mr B Howlin for fighting our corner]
When have either of those two groups ever done anything In Ireland that is of benefit to us the shooting community??? I could never seeing them doing somthing that would benefit us as a whole. I never trusted either govt or gardai before this debate and now I would trust them even less!!!
there is truth in saying around here tell them nothing,let them find out thmselves.If you tell them anything they will use it against you at the first oppurtunity.


I think that's what the entire CJB actually is to be honest.

Sometimes I think we don't take it far enough!

Agreed,being pessimistic means you are never disappointed,anything good comes out is welcome news.

Sparks

Yesterday's debate on the CJB in the Seanad (this is the committee stage) is up on the web here.

Some quotes...

Dr. Henry: I agree with Senator Cummins that 14 is far too young. The proviso is inserted that children may carry and use firearms for hunting and target shooting under the supervision of a specified person over 18 years of age who holds a firearms certificate in that regard. People on provisional driving licences are supposed to have someone who holds a full licence sitting beside them when driving. We know, however, that people on provisional licences take no notice of that stipulation, nor have they done so for many years.

It is dangerous to promote the idea that 14 is a suitable age at which to grant someone a firearms licence. The Minister is a more frequent cinemagoer than I and I am sure that he saw the film “Bowling for Columbine”. The dreadful massacre that occurred in Columbine was re-enacted by schoolfellows and teachers of the perpetrators and victims. This was not a one-off event because there have been many similar massacres in schools across America. Most worryingly, in a majority of cases, the firearms used were legally held, frequently by the children involved, most of whom were under 16. It is bad to send out a signal that we think 14 is the right age at which somebody can begin carrying a firearm around for shooting, target practice and hunting, especially when we know section 2A(1)(a)(i), which specifies they will be supervised by an 18 year old, is unlikely to be enforced.

Mr. Norris: I have been contacted by a constituent who is an Olympic shooter and has significant problems. A cousin of mine has shot at Bisley. Shooting is a legitimate sport. Due to what my constituent feels are loose definitions of firing ranges or gun clubs in this Bill, he is afraid it may not be possible for young people to train effectively in this reasonable sport. He would support the Minister but his view is that the Bill militates against any Irish person achieving Olympic standard. I rushed out of the House five minutes ago because I assumed this correspondence was in my briefing folder but I cannot find it. I should be able to return to it if the Bill continues tomorrow. I remember the specific point that was made, which was that even as they exist the provisions of the Bill militate against Ireland ever having proper training facilities and equal access to the highest levels of this sport in terms of marksmanship, clay pigeon shooting and other disciplines. One of the principal points is the looseness of definitions of rifle ranges and gun clubs. I hope to have this correspondence before tomorrow, certainly in the next day or so, and perhaps I could send it to the Minister. Although he may be aware of the points, they are cogently argued by my constituent and I am full of regret that I do not have the correspondence to hand. However I have covered the principal points.

...

Mr. B. Hayes: I was sceptical about shooting clubs and people who shoot until I recently visited a club in my constituency. I was impressed by the club’s organisation. The moment I entered this new rifle club premises in Bohernabreena I was conscious of security and that I was in an organisation of responsible people who had a strict code of practice and rules. I was impressed by that. The club members were clear on their procedures, which had been endorsed by the Garda Síochána locally, and that they had the full support of the community. If we are serious about advancing Olympic prospects, shooting is one of the few sports in which we have some hope of winning a medal, rather than some of the field and track events. However, the idea that a 14 or 15 year old could get one of these certificates is questionable. If, in terms of section 2A the Minister stated that children of 14 or 15 could shoot only in the confines of a club, that might be arguable because the environment provides a legal framework. Even when adults shoot in this club they are supervised on a one-to-one basis by a person who hears the person calling out the instructions. If children of 14 or 15 were allowed to shoot within a club I would have some sympathy with that position. However I cannot support keeping 2A1(a)(i), which specifies “under the supervision of a specified person over 18 years of age who holds a firearm certificate in respect of it”. That is one individual. Some maverick parent or dubious character who has a training certificate could take a 14 or 15 year old out shooting wild boar or whatever, trying to have manly experiences up the mountains. If the Minister removed that I would have some sympathy with his position. I have sympathy with the concept that 14 or 15 year olds, possibly on a school outing, could shoot only in a club rather than supervised by just one person. However to allow a 14 or 15 year old to be taken shooting by one person over the age of 18 invites difficulty particularly in the context of the new pellet guns. The Minister is aware of a case in my area two weeks ago when a young boy was terrified out of his wits by threats, accusations and physical force through pellet guns, which are taking hold in our communities. In the context of one person training them, 14 or 15 years is too young. In a club or organisation there are greater guarantees that the minor would be under the supervision of a group of people who have built up knowledge and experience in this area.

(Hooray and well done to BRC by the way!)

Sparks

continued...

Mr. Norris: I have good news. Having rushed down to my office and back to the Chamber, I discover that what I had looked at but did not think was my briefing material actually was the material. I should not have doubted the wonderful and efficient Miriam.

<snip>

On Second Stage the Minister and Senator Jim Walsh nodded when I mentioned country pursuits. This is a fact of life. My correspondent is interested in the question of definitions, not just ages. He indicates that guns were removed wholesale because of the “Troubles” although this failed to stem them “Troubles”. The only people who observed it were the legitimate users of gun clubs and it smothered their activities. They want the Minister to consider the following:

“target shooting” and “shooting range” to be defined in law since target shooting on an unauthorised shooting range is now a criminal offence. For “zeroing” to be defined separately from “target shooting” and for zeroing off a shooting range to be legal for a hunter since many hunters may live over a hundred miles from the nearest shooting range. To know what firearms the Minister wants to declare restricted and his reasons for such restrictions. For there to be an appeals process [which is a fundamental part of our legal system]. To be able to make submission on the drafting of guidelines. The guidelines required by law to be published openly. For clay pigeon shooters to be able get licences for target shooting with shotguns without having to join a rifle or pistol club. To not have to surrender character references and medical records and . . . [the] right to privacy in order to get a licence for a firearm with which to represent their country in international sport, Olympic or otherwise. To know what standards the Minister intends to demand that ranges and clubs meet.

There is much more detail fleshing this out but since I now have the document and have made the principal points I would like to make it available to the Minister, with the exception of the first page of the briefing. This suggests that perhaps the gun club was not taken at all times quite as seriously as it might have been. I shall remove it to spare the ministerial feelings but everything else will be made available to him and his advisers.

Mr. M. McDowell: I assure the Senator that my feelings are not all that sensitive.

Mr. Norris: The Minister surprises me.

Mr. M. McDowell: It would require a high velocity weapon to penetrate my thick hide.

Section 28 is a response to representations made to me by the shooting community. I have not thought up some new wheeze to expose people to gun-toting youngsters. The section provides a new section to the Firearms Act which ascribes responsibility to the Commissioner not to a tired sergeant maybe in Donnybrook Garda station, who is rushed and wants to get the file off the desk.

Dr. Henry: Shooting the ducks in the park.

Mr. M. McDowell: The Commissioner alone can do this. The administration of this provision is centralised in Phoenix Park. Section 28 states, “The Commissioner, on application and payment of the prescribed fee (if any), may issue to a person over 14 years of age a certificate (in this Act referred to as a ”firearms training certificate“) authorising the person to possess a firearm and ammunition...”. In other words, the person can merely have it in his or her possession, not own it. The person is not allowed to have it in his or her house, or to store it or any of those things. It is not a right of ownership.

The section continues “only while (a) carrying and using the firearm for hunting or target shooting”. A kid may not have a firearm under the bed at home. That is not authorised possession. A kid may not bring it to school. He cannot do any of those things. It must be in that context only and “(i) under the supervision of a specified person over 18 years of age”. In other words it is not any person over the age of 18 but it must be a particular adult——

Mr. Cummins: He is only 18——

Mr. M. McDowell: The Commissioner must decide who that specified person is. It is not the case that one of the kid’s four brothers is enabled to go rabbit shooting with him. That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Cummins: It is not very clear.

Mr. M. McDowell: That person must hold a firearms certificate himself or herself and have therefore undergone all the assessment necessary for that activity. It is not just any 18 year old, in the way that any driver can sit in with a provisional driver and go wherever he or she wants. It must be somebody who holds a firearms certificate and who the Commissioner has decided is a correct person to specify for the purpose of the training certificate. Let us not get carried away with the notion that this is a licence for gun-toting teenagers.

The rest of the subsection states:

(ii) where the firearm is used for target shooting, on the premises of an authorised rifle or pistol club or at an authorised shooting range or other place that stands authorised under section 2(5) of this Act,

and

(b) complying with such other conditions (if any) as the Commissioner may impose in the interests of public safety and security.

It is wrong to suggest that this is a general licence. It is discretionary and is confined to 14 and 15 year olds to whom in certain circumstances the Commissioner thinks it reasonable to give a licence. The kid must specify the exact person who will be in charge or, if it is happening in a club, the context to which Senator Brian Hayes referred will come into play. The Commissioner can lay down any conditions he likes which are justified in the interests of public safety and security.

Juvenile target shooting is an international sport. Curiously, there have been a few good Irish exponents. The law in its present form, however, means they cannot practise in Ireland, in theory. If they are law-abiding citizens they do not want to infringe the law. They can only practise abroad which is extraordinary. It is strange to have champion standard youngsters who are debarred from holding a weapon in their hands. In this we are out of kilter with the rest of Europe.

This is a measured provision, not a general licence, or some kind of proposal for everybody to have weapons. No youngster is entitled to keep a firearm at home. If a firearm is not being carried and used for the two purposes set out in section 28 2A(1)(a) it must be in the possession of an adult. No child or youngster has the right to have a gun except in this narrow window in which he or she can carry and use it for two purposes, and then only under the supervision of a person whom the Commissioner has specifically approved as a suitable person.

The age limit cannot be 21 because in university rifle clubs and the like, 19 year olds will be put in charge of 18 year olds or 17 year olds. People are younger going to college now than in the past. They may want to practise. This does not expose society to any new danger. The people who are minded to be dangerous will not pay one whit of attention to this provision.

Mr. Norris: They will not look for a licence.

Mr. J. Walsh:...I ask the Minister to monitor closely the provisions of section 28(4), in co-operation with the Garda Commissioner, who will issue the firearms certificates. Section 28(4) provides that if an application is refused, the Commissioner must “give the reasons for the refusal”. I would hate to think this section will put extra pressure on the Commissioner to grant certificates in borderline cases. The Commissioner might find it difficult to put in writing his reasons for refusing the applications in such instances. Various arguments are often made in cases of this nature. In general, I support the argument that reasons should be given when certificates are not granted. As this is a safety issue, I think the Minister should monitor the use of this provision to see whether it gives rise to difficulties for the Commissioner. If such difficulties develop, perhaps this section of the Bill can be changed at a future stage. I know the Minister is anxious that the applications process should be transparent, which is how it should be, but I can envisage circumstances in which the provisions of section 28(4) could pose difficulties for the Commissioner.

Mr. M. McDowell: If Senators consult the record of the other House, they will see I got a real kicking on the subject of transparency during the debate there. It was argued that I was not going far enough in respect of the requirement for reasons to be given. I have some sympathy for Senator Jim Walsh’s point that, by putting the onus on the Commissioner to give a reason, I may be shoving his elbow in a particular way.

Sparks

continued...

Mr. Cummins: I move amendment No. 19:
In page 43, line 12, to delete ”authorisations.“.” and substitute the following:
”authorisations.
(3) Any guidelines issued by the Commissioner under this section shall be made publicly available.“.”.

This amendment is tabled in the interests of clarity. The guidelines on conditions should be made public by the Commissioner.

Mr. M. McDowell: This is the provision to which I referred on which I got such a hammering in regard to transparency in the other House. The purpose of the new section is to enable the Commissioner to issue guidelines for, among other things, the information of the public, on the practical application of firearms and the manner in which the law is administered by the Garda Síochána.

Guidelines for the information of the public will be published but the guidelines may also be used to inform and instruct members of the Garda Síochána on the application and administration of the firearms legislation and also to outline uniform standards and approaches to the application of the law. I have no problem about that information going into the public domain either. This was the point I made in the other House for which I got a very short shrift.

Dr. Henry: That will not happen here.

Mr. M. McDowell: I hope I get a better hearing here. However, this section will also enable the Minister to issue guidelines to members of the force on specific operational issues which may relate solely to the administration of firearms law which would only be pertinent to members of the force engaged in the administration of the firearms law or which, in the view of the Commissioner, might on security grounds be considered inappropriate to put into the public domain.

The provision arises in view of the court case decision that the Commissioner had no right to issue guidelines in this regard and that superintendents were separate statutory officers with their own discretion and should not be guided by the views of the Commissioner in these matters. In other words, the Commissioner was deemed not to be in a position to substitute his or her judgment for that of superintendents. This provision establishes the right of the Commissioner to set down such guidelines. The great majority of these guidelines will be published but some may include security information for the guidance of local superintendents which the Commissioner may not want in the public domain. The gun lobby - if I may call it such - has been assured that the general guidelines will be published and, furthermore, that its members will be consulted in devising those guidelines. It is not a question of these people being left in the dark.

In cases where some security-specific guideline issues from the Phoenix Park to all officers, I do not want a situation where that must be put in the public domain if it is to have effect. Likewise, if a superintendent is to be guided by the Commissioner as a matter of entitlement on the part of the Commissioner to give that guidance, it should not be the case that every instance of such guidance must be put in the public domain. I was hammered for this proposition in the other House. The notion that there could be private guidelines seemed anathema, particularly to Deputy Howlin. The situation is that, in general terms, the guidelines will be published and there will be discussion, consultation and interaction between the Commissioner and the gun lobby. However, I do not want to say that no guideline could issue which would bind a superintendent on security issues unless it was thrown into the public domain. This was the argument we had in the Dáil.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The debate on the mental health amendments is fairly long and sadly funny to read - or would be if it didn't apply to us. Some interesting quotes to remember though:

Mr. M. McDowell:...There are 220,000 shotguns in Ireland. Are there to be 220,000 medical examinations and, if so, how often? Is a psychiatrist or GP to meet every applicant for renewal of a shotgun licence to ensure he or she is still sane?

What can we do on this issue that is practical? It is easy to lay down a method in advance, but does the Opposition really want every applicant to meet his or her GP to prove his or her sanity and have the GP carry out a psychological evaluation? If so, fair enough, but the paperwork involved will be prodigious. We have enough problems with eye tests for the elderly to determine suitability to drive. Is every one of the 220,000 shotgun licenceholders in the country to be submitted to a compulsory psychological evaluation? How is this to be done? It is not so easy.

The great majority of shotgun licenceholders never do anything untoward with their weapons. Only a tiny handful of people have used licensed firearms to commit an act of violence on another person. The number is infinitesimal and almost negligible from a statistical point of view.

(bit of a turn about from the earlier press stories of how licenced firearms were a threat, no?)

we cannot operate on the basis that everyone must prove that he or she is not a risk, to a mathematical extent, before we issue a firearms certificate.

Yet that's precisely what section 3 now demands...

We must try to keep things in perspective. The situation here is not the same as that which exists in the United Kingdom. An incident such as the Dunblane episode is very unlikely to happen in Ireland because the right to possess firearms is much more restricted here. Restricted firearms are rarely the subject of an authorisation. That is something with which we must live.

So when he says "Restricted firearms are rarely the subject of an authorisation", should we be worried about pistols being declared to be restricted?

Sparks

continued...

SECTION 34.
Mr. Norris: I took the opportunity of transferring to the Minister the correspondence that had been sent to me on this subject. The problem is one of definition. I hope the Minister will be able to look at this situation again and make it very clear to the gun clubs exactly what their situation is in terms of matters like being able to make appeals and registration.

While Senator Jim Walsh raised this matter in an unadulterated paean of praise for the section, I must enter the slight qualification that I hope the Minister examines the material I have given him in the interests of the gun clubs. He seems sympathetic to and understanding of the situation. I blush when I mention the fact that there was a Trinity College gun club.

Mr. Coghlan: Does the Senator mean to say that he was not a member?

Mr. B. Hayes: That is his second mention of it.

Mr. Norris: The first was by the Minister and the second was by me.

Mr. B. Hayes: The Senator mentioned it first. It is the third mention.

Mr. Norris: In that case, the Senator cannot count. Will the Minister examine the material and make a response?

Mr. M. McDowell: I am grateful to Senator Jim Walsh for his paean of praise and note the qualification added by Senator Norris. The students of Trinity played their part in 1916 with all of the weapons to which the Senator referred.

Mr. Norris: Indeed they did. Some of them were shot in the 1960s.

Question put and agreed to.

And an interesting quote from the Minister for Justice:

Mr. M. McDowell: If an international clay pigeon-shooting champion is involved in a fracas in a local pub, should he be put out of business? He should not.

I wonder what would happen if the ICPSA actually took him up on that?

Sparks

The first list of Seanad Report Stage amendments are up on the web here (which is pretty fast given that the Committee stage isn't scheduled to conclude until 2230 tonight according to the oireachtas website).

Sparks

Seems the Seanad has run way ahead of schedule. The final vote was just taken and the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 has passed through the Seanad and will now be handed over to the President for signing. As soon as they post a copy of the final format of the bill, I'll post it here.

Sparks

Good grief. No, that's not the end of it, it's going back to the Dail one last time according to one of the Senators...

spideog7

Sorry not a great fan of politics at the best of time so haven't read most of that waffle , was just interested in knowing how this was coming along...a rough timeframe perhaps ? :rolleyes:
It seemed promising then I read the last post
Anywho is there provision in this for subsequent rifle licences (cheaper),(as there is for shotguns).
Thats all I'd like to know now, I'll wait til sparks posts up the final draft before asking any other questions
Thanks
Pat

Clare gunner

Well,after reading some very misinformed and ignorant comments on shooting from our learned senators.I am more than ever convinced that this expensive academic, ivory tower, talking shop should be abolished as soon as possible.:mad: :mad:

de_shadow

Sparks wrote:

Good grief. No, that's not the end of it, it's going back to the Dail one last time according to one of the Senators...

Where does this laeve us, has the bill been passed to be signed into law or will they now wait until they come back from their summer hols

Sparks

Sorry shadow, the bill went back to the Dail last night for 20 minutes. It was signed and passed with only minor amendments, none of which affect us. I'm waiting for the final form of the bill to be published before I do up a restatement and post it here.

de_shadow

Thanks Sparks fair play t'ya

Hauk

So now we only have to wait for the President to sign it in to law? Or has it already been signed into law!

Hauk

Sparks

Nope, not signed in yet. Now we wait for the President's signature, and then there will be a raft of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments they're called) that will be passed enacting that Bill. A few weeks to a few months before the stuff that affects us is in place, at a rough guess.

newby.204

So in theory if i get my rifle licence in like ASAP the sh!t might not have hit the fan and i could avoid the rigmaroll till my next licence application!!!

Sparks

Yes. Of course, that doesn't mean you won't face it at the next renewal the following year.

Sparks

I've put together a quick restatement of the Firearms Act under the new Bill. This should be what we have to operate under, and should kick in sometime later this year.

New Firearms Act

Clare gunner

Ta for that Sparks,very readable without having to wade thru alot of dead wood.

Sparks

No worries CG. I'm going to try to put it in Microsoft Word format tomorrow night.