Moniterd Alarm Needed For Licence ?

TargetWidow

Sparks wrote: »

Don't be daft.

Yes, but you're missing the important distinction there.
They didn't walk into the garda station looking for a fight. They didn't take court cases just to be contrary. They dealt with a problem after it arose. And they did so through the law. What you're talking about is looking at the local super as an enemy before you've even met the man, and if we've learned one thing over the years, it's that the majority of the superintendents are not anti-shooter. There are a handful, and if we sat down we could probably list them and it'd be a short list compared to the overall total. And in those cases where there's blatent law-breaking on their part, then yes, something must be done.

But you're saying that if the Super demands a monitored alarm, we should tell him to get stuffed - but he's perfectly legally entitled to demand a monitored alarm. You'd lose that case before you got going - and in the process, you would damage the overall case for all shooters everywhere. Because afterwards, we wouldn't have a 100% success rate in the courts.

"But you're saying that if the Super demands a monitored alarm, we should tell him to get stuffed - but he's perfectly legally entitled to demand a monitored alarm. You'd lose that case before you got going - and in the process, you would damage the overall case for all shooters everywhere. Because afterwards, we wouldn't have a 100% success rate in the courts."

I have to disagree with Sparks there on that one;.
The Super's right to demand a monitored alarm only comes into force with the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill which is not yet legal. Like I said before.. not all supers are overstepping the mark with shooters, but if you get one who fancies his chances, try getting him to put it in writing on your licence. Any preconditions outside of the usual (currently in force Firearms Acts etc) need to be in writing. See how brave he is then. The ones that do demand alarms seem to be demanding the EN50131 standard which is connected to a registered monitoring service 24/7 and only installed by an EN 50131 approved installer. Your average Yale jobbie from Argos wasn't making my super a happy bunny. But then he's not the happiest bunny lately anyway!!

cavan shooter

I thought the criminal justice act was enacted, also the superintendent can place stipulations on the storage of the firearm as part of the granting of the Firearm certificate to quote NARGC guidance on the issue:

4. Can the Gardai require me to undertake any actions in support of my application or set any conditions?
The Gardai may lawfully require you to satisfy them for example, that you have somewhere to use the gun. This goes to the heart of a) in paragraph 1 of this pamphlet. In fact it would be lawful for the Superintendent to seek to satisfy him/her self on any matter affecting the basic requirements in paragraph 1. However, it is unlawful for the Superintendent to set conditions or make requirements of an applicant which are not provided for in the Act or which are for the purposes of frustrating an application.
The Superintendent shall require an applicant to demonstrate that he/she has secure storage facilities for the firearm. Where a Superintendent has particular grounds for concern about the mental or physical capacity of an applicant which could affect the safe use of a firearm, he/she may require an applicant to give written permission for the Superintendent to consult with the applicant’s medical/psychiatric practitioner.


20. Can the Superintendent attach conditions to my licence?

A Superintendent may attach reasonable conditions to the grant of a firearms licence. A Superintendent of an Garda Siochana may not attach conditions to a firearms licence which would be excessively onerous or would have the effect of rendering the intended use of the firearm impossible. Any conditions should be endorsed on the licence itself.

24. Do I have unspecified obligations and responsibilities?

All firearms licence holders owe a serious duty of care to themselves, to their shooting colleagues, to farmers and other landowners and to the wider general public. That duty places an onus on licence holders to take all reasonable care in how they use their firearms and in how they store their firearms and ammunition. They also have a duty not to carelessly expose their firearms to risk of theft. These are self evident responsibilities of firearms ownership. Remember, in using your firearm you must behave in a manner so as not to be a cause of danger to others and so as not give rise to concern by others.


Sorry it is so long, anyway why is a monitored alarm unreasonable??

fishdog

anyway why is a monitored alarm unreasonable??

1) It offers no more security than an alarrm that rings you directly.

2) It costs you money every year! For what? To pay a guy to ring you to tell you your alarm is going off!

Sparks

TargetWidow wrote: »

I have to disagree with Sparks there on that one;.
The Super's right to demand a monitored alarm only comes into force with the forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill which is not yet legal.

Except that that's not the case. Dunne v. Donoghue's High Court and Supreme Court rulings both agreed that the Superintendent can set individual preconditions on licences that aren't specificly mentioned in the Acts but which are aligned with what's in the act - i.e. the Act doesn't mention monitored alarms, but it does mention public safety, so if the Super says you have to have a monitored alarm to protect public safety given the level of firearms thefts (and there's a reason why the low level of thefts has been hyped up in the press, if you're a cynical person...), then he's within the law to do so. He can't insist you wear a tutu (though under the yet-to-be-commenced parts of the Criminal Justice Act, all bets are off...), but the latitude of his powers in this area are... formidable.

Basicly, it's a much better idea to be seen by him to be risk-free than it is to walk into his office spoiling for a fight.

chem

Have to agree with the point above. But if we role over and let any super make up his own laws, we are back to the gun safe issues of the past. Its OK to paly the game with the supers but if they keep chaning the rules what chance do we have:o

TargetWidow

I cant say much here Sparks without giving away vital details of my own security but I refer you to the High Court Victory thread of a few weeks ago. My house. No conditions. This took 3 years and 6 months. And ALOT of grief from Gardai. No one is spoiling for a fight. Legitimate target and sports shooters just want to be able to enjoy their sport as they always have, without promotion hungry Supers looking to make a name for themselves. I agree that security is a vital issue. I also agree with Fishdog though. No boys in blue are gonna come rushing around to my place if my monitored alarm were to go off. Post office (with monitored alarm) nearby recently broken into and Gardai notified at 4am of break in. They landed on at 11am the next morning. All a monitored alarm will do is instill a false sense of security in firearms owners. Better keep bolts separately in another safe because there are no real deterrants and best not depend on the Gardai to be of any use in the event of a break in regardless of whether or not you jump through their many hoops.

meathshooter

I have four certs and I am currently waiting for my fifth licence,
I have A High Spec Alarm safe auto dialler approved already by CPO.
on the new application had to be re inspected by new CPO and he told
my system was one of the better ones he has seen but the super will insists
on the safe be conected in the alarm(which was done)and conected to a central monitoring station (which I had to do) and all work carried out to EN50131 by a certified installer,was told politely if I hadnt got the monitored alarm It would effect my application

TargetWidow

I would really love to see more Garda resources put into tracking down actual criminals and alot less put into harrassing sportspeople. Better still I'd love to see it taken out of their hands altogether and licencing put into the hands of an independent firearms authority who actually know about firearms and shooting disciplines. (Garda firearms sergeant quote when faced for a firearm application CZ 85 Combat - "God I dunno about that...mmmmm "Combat"..... that sounds dangerous."). :eek: And this is the "expert" that gets to make the decision?

meathshooter

(mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) I got that a few times

foxshooter243

Sparks wrote: »

Except that that's not the case. Dunne v. Donoghue's High Court and Supreme Court rulings both agreed that the Superintendent can set individual preconditions on licences that aren't specificly mentioned in the Acts but which are aligned with what's in the act - i.e. the Act doesn't mention monitored alarms, but it does mention public safety, so if the Super says you have to have a monitored alarm to protect public safety given the level of firearms thefts (and there's a reason why the low level of thefts has been hyped up in the press, if you're a cynical person...), then he's within the law to do so. He can't insist you wear a tutu (though under the yet-to-be-commenced parts of the Criminal Justice Act, all bets are off...), but the latitude of his powers in this area are... formidable.

Basicly, it's a much better idea to be seen by him to be risk-free than it is to walk into his office spoiling for a fight.

I think that reference " walk into his office spoiling for a fight" may be
directed at my post , but all i want to say is that when I had a grievance
with local gardai over firearms issues it was instigated by them not me,
I made applications in a reasonable manner and was met by ignorance
in that they didnt understand the law relating to firearms, and being told
that my security was not up to spec-when i asked for the spec it could
not be given as it did not exist in law.maybe the fact that in the end everything i asked for was granted says something.

ranger4

foxshooter243 wrote: »

I think that reference " walk into his office spoiling for a fight" may be
directed at my post , but all i want to say is that when I had a grievance
with local gardai over firearms issues it was instigated by them not me,
I made applications in a reasonable manner and was met by ignorance
in that they didnt understand the law relating to firearms, and being told
that my security was not up to spec-when i asked for the spec it could
not be given as it did not exist in law.maybe the fact that in the end everything i asked for was granted says something.

Did you install a moniterd alarm to obtain your cert.

meathshooter

ranger4 wrote: »

Did you install a moniterd alarm to obtain your cert.

I installed my moniterd to obtain my fifth cert (still waiting for cert),but I think it was a good move anyway in a secuirty sence,(IF line is cut alarm sounds and monitor station knows also have priorty responce from guards because of my sporting firearms)I would prefer to keep the super happy,if thats what he wants to help him sleep at night dont get
me wrong I will argue my corner and I would have know problem bringing a
court case if I felt I was being messed about and on sound legal advice but only if I had exhausted every possable avenue,after all the guards are meant to be on our side(and have know problem in reminding them of the difference)
although sometimes filling out a firearms application, guards make you feel like you have commited some crime mmmmmmmmm,thats my experience

Sparks

The thing is (and I'm looking at TW here, 'cos by now most of us in the community know who TW is), the phrase was if something needs doing, then do it. The if is a rather big if, and it tends to get drowned out a lot when people who've encountered real problems talk about them - everyone gets so het up that there are problems (where there should be none), that they miss the fact - and it is a fact - that the vast majority of Supers are not opposed to hunting or target shooting or farmers who keep shotguns for foxes and magpies. (They're rather opposed to criminal abuses of firearms, but they're also not daft enough to think that criminals go seeking licences first). There are a handful of Supers who don't share that view - and we all know it. And in those cases, then sometimes court cases are a last resort that needs to be resorted to. But as those who've done so can tell you, it's not a picnic, it's a lot of time and money and stress, and it is a last resort.

What I'm trying to say is that if you post here that you're always going to find problems when you go to get your cert, then people who've never gone for their cert before may get the wrong idea and may wind up causing problems for themselves where none would have arisen otherwise. And we all know that there are people in the community who tend to prefer to "fight the man" than to just go to the range and shoot, and it's damaging to get sucked into that way of thinking.

fishdog

IF line is cut alarm sounds

I dont think so. This is against regulations AFAIK. I would look for clarification on that if I were you. You have to think of the consequences of a cable with 1,000 or so phnoe lines being cut or if a telephone exchange went down etc. You simply could not have hundreads of alarms sounding at the same time.

all work carried out to EN50131 by a certified installer,

With most alarms, such as (eg Astec) by simply connecting it up it automatically conforms to EN50131. This is because the equipment is made to that standard. Even without being connected to a monitoring station it can be EN50131

Bear in mind you need no technical qualifications, training or experience to be a certified installer. AFAIK and I have asked the number of installers who have had their certification taken from them due to poor workmanship is less than 1!!

cavan shooter

fishdog wrote: »

1) It offers no more security than an alarrm that rings you directly.

2) It costs you money every year! For what? To pay a guy to ring you to tell you your alarm is going off!

Point taken but is the cost unreasonable having due regard to the consequences of your firearms getting stolen. And is the bone of contention here not the whole aspect of inconsistency with the security arrangements.

fishdog

is the cost unreasonable having due regard to the consequences of your firearms getting stolen.

I think you are missing my point. If it were to make your firearms more secure then it is money well spent. IMHO it does not make your firearms more secure. I mean how is a guy ringing you and telling you your alarm is going off safer than your alarm ringing you directly alerting you to the fact that it is going off?

I think the money could be better spent on a second safe or IP cameras or a GSM module to protect your phone line.

If you read the garda policy on intruder alarms you will see that they will not call the gardai unless they can make contact with a keyholder that agrees to be at the residence when gardai arrive. Even then they are only allowed to ring gardai after the second alarm activation on another part of the alarm system.

This policy can be found on a link from the Eircon Phonewatch home page.

And is the bone of contention here not the whole aspect of inconsistency with the security arrangements.

I agree with you on this one.

BTW I have seen crime prevention officers inspect and pass alarm systems that are not connected to a monitoring station and FACs have been issued because of the inspection having satisfactory outcome for full bore rifles and pistols.

foxshooter243

ranger4 wrote: »

Did you install a moniterd alarm to obtain your cert.

no I didnt install a monitored alarm and the cert was granted..

cavan shooter

Fishdog,
All Im saying is that to argue the unreasonable card you have to be able to demonstrate that The requirements that are being put upon you goes beyond what can be termed reasonable.

Monitored alarms are on the airwaves in the adds all the time and readily accessible, look at the side of peoples houses, they are not unreasonable.

Not appropriate thats a different argument when you consider how the monitored alarm system works vs the dialer, response times etc.

By the way I didn't need to get one and I have no shares in a company:D

boa-constrictor

quackquackBOOM wrote: »

what if you had one of these.
you could get one of the numbers to ring the garda barracks http://www.home-security-action.co.uk/yale-wireless-alarm.html

I did the Fas alarm installation course a couple of years ago and the instructor told us that if our lives depended on it we were never ever to connect the communicator directly to the barracks. Seemingly they get extremely annoyed if you do that.

As far as getting a certified installer is concerned - I think that would be a complete waste of money. If you own firearms it is well worth your while doing the Fas course at a cost of around €150 and that will entitle you to install alarms as long as it is not for reward meaning you can do your own and say a relatives or a friends as long as you don't take payment for it. As I am currently renting while waiting for the property market to finish nosediving my landlord got a certified installer to put in my alarm and he was useless even though he is fully registered etc. The industry is a joke.

cock robin

Top Security are one of the bigest monitoring companies in the country. You must have an alarm with a pre installed digi(a phone line interface that contact's monitoring station) They will even supply a patrol vehicle to call to your home.It cost's but they generally arrive before the Guard's. There is an annual charge for the monitoring and a call out charge for every activation of your alarm, they contact the shades on your behalf. But if your alarm is continuely going off (falsely) the Guard's will black list your address.Then your f***ed.

fishdog

If you own firearms it is well worth your while doing the Fas course at a cost of around €150

That is true, very good point. It is not that hard. Do your own alarm, the materials are quite cheap and you can mhange it as you see fit.

BTW there have been sevral good articals in PC magazines recently about how to install cheap IP cameras yourself.

Believe me if you rang the gardai and told them "My alam just rang me, I went online and saw intruders in my house. By the way I have sevral firearms...". I think you would get a very quick response.

SMERSH

Out here if you ring the Gardai you are looking at a min response time of 20 mins in the best case senario. They would have to travel 15 miles form the district HQ. What's odd is there is a closer 24 hour district HQ only 8 miles away and they will not respond to incidents in my area.

meathshooter

fishdog wrote: »

I dont think so. This is against regulations AFAIK. I would look for clarification on that if I were you. You have to think of the consequences of a cable with 1,000 or so phnoe lines being cut or if a telephone exchange went down etc. You simply could not have hundreads of alarms sounding at the same time.


With most alarms, such as (eg Astec) by simply connecting it up it automatically conforms to EN50131. This is because the equipment is made to that standard. Even without being connected to a monitoring station it can be EN50131

Bear in mind you need no technical qualifications, training or experience to be a certified installer. AFAIK and I have asked the number of installers who have had their certification taken from them due to poor workmanship is less than 1!!

If the line is cut alarm will sound internally for 20min and monitor station will ring me to tell line is down,also to get rapid responce from
garda has to be dual veryfied system or panic button,cpo wanted nsai cert

fishdog

If the line is cut alarm will sound internally for 20min

Interesting I have never heard of that before. Why would you want your alarm to sound internally? No one outside would hear it and it can no longer communicate with the outside world.

Most alarm systems have a feature that will tell you that the phone line is no longer detected.

dual veryfied system

A dual verification in itself takes quite a bit of time as it requires two activations on two different zones as well as getting hold of the keyholders before they are permitted to phone the gardai. They also have to have an agreement from a keyholder to be present for gardai or the gardai will not turn up. Current regulations do not permit the alarm to even attempt to phone out until the alarm is going off for a while.

One of the drawbacks with alarms connected to monitoring stations is that regulations will not permit alarms to ring out for at least 30 seconds, it could easily take another 30 seconds before the monitoring station has even started to phone keyholders. It might not sound like a long time, but every minute in your house is alot when an intruder is in it! An alarm that rings you directly can be programmed to inform you of an activation far quicker because the regulations do not apply to it.

rapid responce from garda

This can not be garanteed anywhere. The garda policy document talks of this.

Our man in Havana

This can not be garanteed anywhere. The garda policy document talks of this.

Rural areas in particular. You could be looking at anything up to an hour for a garda response in the countryside. An hour is an awfully long time when someone is violating your home.

meathshooter

fishdog wrote: »

Interesting I have never heard of that before. Why would you want your alarm to sound internally? No one outside would hear it and it can no longer communicate with the outside world.

Most alarm systems have a feature that will tell you that the phone line is no longer detected.


A dual verification in itself takes quite a bit of time as it requires two activations on two different zones as well as getting hold of the keyholders before they are permitted to phone the gardai. They also have to have an agreement from a keyholder to be present for gardai or the gardai will not turn up. Current regulations do not permit the alarm to even attempt to phone out until the alarm is going off for a while.

One of the drawbacks with alarms connected to monitoring stations is that regulations will not permit alarms to ring out for at least 30 seconds, it could easily take another 30 seconds before the monitoring station has even started to phone keyholders. It might not sound like a long time, but every minute in your house is alot when an intruder is in it! An alarm that rings you directly can be programmed to inform you of an activation far quicker because the regulations do not apply to it.


This can not be garanteed anywhere. The garda policy document talks of this.

the only reason I got the monitored alarm was to keep the super happy ,I pointed out to the cpo that the autodialler I had was a far better option and he agreed with me,but for some reason the super does"nt share that,wheres
the logic

fishdog

the only reason I got the monitored alarm was to keep the super happy

Then you were dead right getting it, otherwise you would not have got the FAC you were looking for. I would have done the same.

,wheres the logic

1) It may put some people off and for some supers that is an easy victory.
2) Some of them have little/no knowlage of alarm systems.
3) There does not have to be any logic.

meathshooter

fishdog wrote: »

Then you were dead right getting it, otherwise you would not have got the FAC you were looking for. I would have done the same.


STILL WAITING for the cert all the same ,applied 14 weeks ago have ,waited longer in the past,But since I was quoted extracts from the 2006 firearms act(which was not IN force at the time of application and I told fo that) I sould get my answer within the 3 months afterall I have gone to considerable expence to upgrade my secuirty to the supers satasfaction

bunny shooter

my last application too 5 months. My longest ever wait

meathshooter

my shortist was 7weeks longest 11months,but I can now see monitored alarms been a precondition (centrefire)thats what my cpo
is saying