Garda refused pistol licence

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Not quite the case there bunny. I was at the FCP conference and the CPO guy that gave the talk on security and other stuff outlined the requirements:

Level A - Gun cabinet secured to solid wall and floor and preferrably concealed.
Level B - As per Level A plus an alarm and separate safe for ammo and bolts etc.
Level C - As per Level B plus alarm must be monitored, 5 lever locks on doors and windows in good condition.

Level A - 4 or less .22 cal rifles and shotguns (over 4 is Level
Level B - 4 or less Fullbore Rifles (Over 4 is Level C)
Level C - Pistols.

That's all pistols, whether they run the marathon in the Olympics or do the high jump at the community games.

I stand corrected on the pistol info, however, I thought the level c standard was non monitored alarms upgradable if Super could demonstrate need for monitoring ?

murph226

Thanks for the info lads, looks like I'll be pricing an alarm:mad::mad::mad: Not that I'm against the extra security, its just that the goalposts are moving all the time. I'll keep ye posted anyway!

bunny shooter

murph226 wrote: »

...........its just that the goalposts are moving all the time. I'll keep ye posted anyway!

They should be stopped moving now

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

I stand corrected on the pistol info, however, I thought the level c standard was non monitored alarms ?

That's what I have in my notes bunny. It's still legible enough

I have alarm beside level B and monitored alarm and the other stuff just under level C.

It still may vary district to district, but I don't have that information and I'd guess the best way to find out is to ask.

I wouldn't advise anyone to put this stuff in place until they get a go, no-go on the licence. We really should be more like the UK on this and not require people to spend money until they're approved.

murph226

Hopefully for all our sakes

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

That's what I have in my notes bunny. It's still legible enough ..............QUOTE]

I can't dispute that , however,

"LEVEL 3: Where five non-restricted firearms or more or even one restricted firearm is kept, the minimum requirement should be the same as for level 2 but in addition, the premises should have an alarm fitted (non monitored) and the external house door should be fitted with locks to BS3621 standard."

extract from document released by FCP.

Someone moved the goalposts ?

How did you miss that in those notes of yours

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

..........It still may vary district to district, but I don't have that information and I'd guess the best way to find out is to ask.

I wouldn't advise anyone to put this stuff in place until they get a go, no-go on the licence. We really should be more like the UK on this and not require people to spend money until they're approved.

Thought the FCP were to do away with the difference between districts ?

The second statement is very interesting, I had to get all the security sorted before the Super would make a decision.

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

Thought the FCP were to do away with the difference between districts ?

The FCP is an advisory body. They don't have the power to do away with those differences (or to do anything for that matter). That's for the DoJ and the Gardai to sort out. Obviously the FCP will advise that it should go that way, but it's up to the Gardai/DoJ to make the decision and to implement it.

bunny shooter wrote: »

The second statement is very interesting, I had to get all the security sorted before the Super would make a decision.

I think he was saying "don't spend money until they force you". I guess your Super forced you.

bunny shooter

IRLConor wrote: »

............I guess your Super forced you.

Oh ya, over proverbial barrel

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

"LEVEL 3: Where five non-restricted firearms or more or even one restricted firearm is kept, the minimum requirement should be the same as for level 2 but in addition, the premises should have an alarm fitted (non monitored) and the external house door should be fitted with locks to BS3621 standard."

extract from document released by FCP.

Someone moved the goalposts ?

How did you miss that in those notes of yours

Two very different things bunny. What you've quoted is an extract from the guidelines which haven't issued yet. Meanwhile out in the wild, wild world, the CPO's are doing what comes naturally and making it up as they go along.

So until the guidelines issue, the CPO's are still making the rules.

Thought the FCP were to do away with the difference between districts ?

The guidelines are intended to bring more consistency to the decision making process. The law states that Superintendents are the licensing authority and that will still be the case. It certainly is the case right now.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

The new legislation includes various grades of security for various types of firearms. Will find link to it............

Nope, not in the legislation. As mentioned in the FCP conference thread and posted by RRPC:

The NCPU have issued guidelines to supers as advice, not rules.
These are:
The firearm has to be stored in a structurally sound building.
Gun cabinets must be used.
Firearms should never be left unattended.
Three categories for secure storage:
Category A (rifles to .22, shotguns)
- Gun Cabinet (not insisting on BS standard, just that it be fit for purpose), secured to a solid wall or floor and concealed if possible.
- The dwelling should be reasonably secure (good doors and windows).
Category B (fullbore rifles)
- Gun Cabinet as in category A
- Seperate storage area in the cabinet for ammunition
- Audible (not necessarily monitored) alarm on the dwelling
Category C (pistols and revolvers)
- Gun Cabinet as in category B
- External doors must be in good condition with 5 lever mortice locks or for patio doors, anti-lift devices.
- Alarm to EM5031 standard, monitored by a recognised monitoring centre
Also, if you have four or more firearms in a category, you must meet the standards of the next higher category (so 4 cat A firearms = you must meet the cat B conditions).

That's from the National Crime Prevention Unit and are their recommended standards, but the individual Superintendents can ignore or exceed them on their own judgement.

Bananaman

Remember that the Super is tasked with deciding if you can have a firearm based on your character.

Arguing with him/her over their recommendations for the preservation of the safety of the great unwashed will not stand to you being of "suitable character" as you will be seen to be holding the preservation of your bank balance above that of the greater good.

If they say you need an alarm, then get an alarm.

My 2p.

B'Man

Sparks

...based on your character

Well, that and whether or not you can use the firearm safely (ie. have a place to shoot it, that sort of thing).
Important to keep in mind that O'Leary does not prevent the Super from considering some aspects of the firearm. He can't say a flat No to you based solely on the type of firearm being applied for, but he could say no if you were looking for a .308 and didn't have a place to shoot it, for example. And that wouldn't be to do with your character, it'd be more down to a mix of firearms type and facilities available.

cavan shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Well, that and whether or not you can use the firearm safely (ie. have a place to shoot it, that sort of thing).
Important to keep in mind that O'Leary does not prevent the Super from considering some aspects of the firearm. He can't say a flat No to you based solely on the type of firearm being applied for, but he could say no if you were looking for a .308 and didn't have a place to shoot it, for example. And that wouldn't be to do with your character, it'd be more down to a mix of firearms type and facilities available.

Thats worrying because, are we back to supers saying no to anything above 22 lr because in his opinion the area you shoot in is too built up and the 223 your applying for has a lethal range of x and according to last weeks prime time programme leading experts in this field think you shouldn't have this type of "weapon" it's over kill for foxes.

Light touch paper and retire:eek:

Sparks

Not something they could say cavan, not if you're a member of a club with an authorised range. And they already won't give you a heavy calibre rifle for hunting if you don't have enough land to use it on.

Bananaman

If you do not have permission to shoot deer and are not a member of a fullbore rifle range you have no demonstrable reason for a .308 so he can say no.

B'Man

cooperjeff9

Bananaman wrote: »

If you do not have permission to shoot deer and are not a member of a fullbore rifle range you have no demonstrable reason for a .308 so he can say no.

B'Man

So, let me get this straight. You meet the security and safe storage requirements, are of good character, are not of intemperate habits, issuing you a licence for a .308 does not pose a threat to public safety and yet the Superintendent can say no because are not a deer hunter and not a member of a club with an authorised range suitable for .308. Rewind to Mr. Brophy and Mr. Flood, both issued licences for firearms of a calibre where no authorised range existed at the time. Methinks you are on a banana skin, Bananaman. Both these individuals had no demonstrable reason for the firearms in question in the Republic of Ireland, yet licences were issued. Yes I know it took a court case but they both got the relevant firearms licenced, not to mention Mr. Brophy's success with his large calibre rifle.

Sparks

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

So, let me get this straight. You meet the security and safe storage requirements, are of good character, are not of intemperate habits, issuing you a licence for a .308 does not pose a threat to public safety and yet the Superintendent can say no because are not a deer hunter and not a member of a club with an authorised range suitable for .308.

Incorrect.
Because you don't have a safe place to use it, you cannot use it without endangering public safety by definition and so the Super is legally bound to refuse you.
Now, if you are a target shooter with access to a suitable range or are hunting and have enough land to use a .308 safely (and this is a test that's been applied since the late 90s, don't forget), he does not have the legal right to refuse based on the calibre alone.

Rewind to Mr. Brophy and Mr. Flood, both issued licences for firearms of a calibre where no authorised range existed at the time.

Except that Frank was applying for a .375H&H to go on safari in Africa with, and Nicholas was applying on the basis that he would be competing internationally and his range was permitted to use .308s.

Methinks you are on a banana skin, Bananaman. Both these individuals had no demonstrable reason for the firearms in question

I'm not convinced that that's entirely correct - Nicholas' case had an inherent weakness in that he was applying for a .308 on the basis that he couldn't compete effectively internationally without one, but he was just after returning from the World Championships with a medal for fullbore silhouette shooting, which would have begged the obvious question in court; and anyone who looked at international best practise would have found it hard to explain why in a sport based on accuracy, a .308 was a better round than the 6mmBR he could easily have applied for at the time. However, he clearly had a reason for using it, just not an unassailable one.

As for Frank, you don't go on safari hunting animals that are very capable of killing humans unless you've trained with the rifle you're bringing, end of discussion. Even in the UK, where he couldn't legally have bought .375 expanding ammunition, he could still have used it with non-expanding ammunition to train.

bunny shooter

So the FCP is as much use in reality as a chocolate fire-guard :eek:

Sparks

In reality, it's the first time since the founding of the state that shooters have had a formal say in firearms legislation.

In reality, if it was so useless, there wouldn't have been ructions, nor would there still be rumblings, about who's on it and who's not.

In reality, over 99% of firearms certs are granted without issues; and in reality, not every refusal or prerequisite is in error.

Vegeta

bunny shooter wrote: »

So the FCP is as much use in reality as a chocolate fire-guard :eek:

if the DoJ/government want they can ignore everything suggested by the shooting community and FCP. Tough but that's the way it is.

We have been given a great opportunity to try and change things for the better for everyone. All we can do is give the FCP our full support.

bunny shooter

Having a formal say is lovely, as long as they listen.

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Having a formal say is lovely, as long as they listen.

Have a good read of Mary O'Rourke's address to the FCP conference and you might see one of the reasons for the FCP's existence.

Des Crofton's comments on Prime Time will give you another.

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

Have a good read of Mary O'Rourke's address to the FCP conference and you might see one of the reasons for the FCP's existence.

Where exactly in the public domain is this enlightening piece of prose ?

And she is ? Ah that's right she is/was a politician, and you can always believe everything they say :rolleyes:

I'll tell you the reason for it's existance. Because FF are playing the we care about you guys card. Give 'em a chance to tell us what's wrong and we'll see if they have more voters than their opposition. Then we'll go with the majority, cause we are a democratic party. Do not think for one minute that shooters are in anything but a minority. And Joe public doesn't want us to have guns. TD's such as Mr Hayes are getting ready to jump on the bandwagon and as in UK bans are coming. It's time we woke up and realised that that smell isn't roses !

Talk IS cheap. Action is what's needed. The court cases have all ruled against the establishment and they are trying to stall for time to make sure they won't loose the next round. There has been no change in nothing to do with firearms. Supers are still insisiting on conditions that aren't legal, by your own admission, and now we're being told to hold tight so the FCP can sort it out.

Looks to me that it will be sorted alright. Practical shooters are being sorted. Who's next ? Won't be your shooting rrpc !

Sparks

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Well.
Except for 24hr clocks, which are only right once, and digital clocks, which just catch fire.


Anyway, point was, she did say one thing that did make some sense - it's better to have contact between the DoJ, Gardai and us, so that they know us and we know them. We've tried it the other way for nearly 86 years or so, and it's not really working out for us...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Well.
Except for 24hr clocks, which are only right once, and digital clocks, which just catch fire.


Anyway, point was, she did say one thing that did make some sense - it's better to have contact between the DoJ, Gardai and us, so that they know us and we know them. We've tried it the other way for nearly 86 years or so, and it's not really working out for us...

They say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

And her opinion counts because ?

Vegeta

what would you have us, as a community, do bunny?

As you point out we don't have a majority in anything so we cant vote in anyone to help our cause. We cant endow ourselves with the power to change legislation at will.

Should the FCP just stop all their current work then because its pointless or should they at least try?

I share your reservations which I have voiced quite often before the conference but I think they should definitely continue and see where it goes.

Anyone know who the chairmen of the FCP is? Could I ask them for a list of their goals or things they are working towards?

patbundy

for any agreement to work you have to give and take,we give and the doj and the guards take,the only time the guards give is when they lose court cases.thanks to the lads who took cases against the guards and won.they have made it less of a hassel for us to get that little piece of paper.even though it was the first meeting they (doj/guards) should have offer something
dont get me wrong i think its good to talk but it must be backed up with an offer of something from the doj/guards, at the moment its just the same as before

Sparks

Vegeta wrote: »

Anyone know who the chairmen of the FCP is? Could I ask them for a list of their goals or things they are working towards?

Garreth Byrne is the chairman, and I don't see why not.

bunny shooter

Vegeta wrote: »

what would you have us, as a community, do bunny?.............

bend over and wait for what we deserve