Automatic

Sparks

I think that if you think it'll be down to a group of people, you're missing the essential point of how the restricted firearms legislation will be implemented - which is that the decision will not be down to the delegated officers ultimately, but to the commissioner. A district super (if that's who it gets delegated to) might notionally have the power to grant a cert the commissioner wouldn't want to; but that would only work if the commissioner didn't find out one of his subordinates had granted a cert he wouldn't want granted, and given that most district supers will have a healthy sense of job preservation (they'd need it to get that far up the ladder), they're not going to invite that ton of bricks down on their head for the sake of Joe Public's hobby. It's certainly a way to ensure consistency of handling of firearms certificate applications - just perhaps not the way we would have wanted...

meathstevie

Wouldn't it be great to live in an utopia where the cops and legislators concentrated on illegal weapons in criminal hands instead and set down a few simple ground rules for private legitimate ownership ? Straightforward stuff like : clean record, no full automatic, no armour piercing or incendary ammunition, compliant with EU hunting guidelines when used for hunting. End of story & full stop.

In the end we're not the ones sneaking around housing estates with submachine guns or a dodgy pistol in order to bump the competitor coke pusher the far side of town. And as for the myth of licensed firearms ending up in criminal hands, exactly what it is : a myth. The figures have been published here before. The current generation of scum brings in their own.

dimebag249

Question: has the minister actually stated the purpose of the restricted list? I know (think) he's allowed to restrict what ever he feels like, but has he said anything like 'I gots to take all these dangerous murderweapons off the streets'. If not should we be e-mailing our T.D.s to ask him in the Dail? I'd love to hear him argue how this list could possiblt benefit public safety or the shooting sports.

Also +1 to the glittering gems of reason from Sparks, meathstevie and Rovi. Seems some of the other posters here are as anti-gun as my local Registered Firearms Dealers! Seriously, all this 'what do you need dat black yoke for, dats a mad lookin thing' bs. It's 'needed' for whatever legal purposes are allowed by a law abiding citizen's firearms certificate, just like an over/under shotgun or an Olympic air rifle.

Mellor

dimebag249 wrote: »

Seems some of the other posters here are as anti-gun as my local Registered Firearms Dealers! Seriously, all this 'what do you need dat black yoke for, dats a mad lookin thing' bs. It's 'needed' for whatever legal purposes are allowed by a law abiding citizen's firearms certificate, just like an over/under shotgun or an Olympic air rifle.

Your local gun dealer is anti-gun?
As for the other comments, I hardly think any user here is anti-gun, nobody said what is it needed for, that got twisted about in replys, it was asked what is the reason for it (over a regular .22lr), purely looks? (not trying to be smart, actually want to know).

The attitude, its a gun, i want it, i am allowed in law etc, may be how shooters actually feel. But that is not going to work if trying to make a point with the powers that be. You need to prove actually reason and justify it. Once again, you may not agree, but thats tough. Its how the world works. Saying well I want it, so I should have it is just going to dig a hole for us (even if this is how you feel, you can't just some out and stamp down and say it)

Sparks

Mellor, I seriously doubt that anyone here would disagree with the idea that you should have some sort of valid reason for wanting a firearm. The question isn't over that - it's over the idea that you must prove a need for a firearm, without any mention being made of the level of proof or degree of need involved.

Mellor

I know thats what most people feel Sparks, me included, but I felt that some of the previous comments strayed from this and were directed at me.
In an ideal world there would be an SI/guidlines on which gund are acceptable and for what, as at the end of the day, alot of FOs or supers are laypeople when it comes to firearms
I don't like the need word either, not sure where it came from in the thread, but as Rovi said, who needs to shoot anything.

meathstevie

Problem is that "a valid reason" is as open for interpretation and argument as a blown of barn door.
Assume the following ( emphasis on assume ) : I'm loaded and want too buy a box set of Holland&Holland Royals too salivate over and as an investment ( those babies never go down in value if you don't fire them ) and I have no intention of ever using them. Would this be a valid reason ? For most supers it wouldn't but if you happen to live in a district where the super is a shooting man who knows his guns he'd tell you to russle up some land permission and bob's your uncle.
Anyway, this leads me back to the point I made above : a set of simple clear rules based on a couple of simple restrictions will go a long way.

Mellor

meathstevie wrote: »

For most supers it wouldn't but if you happen to live in a district where the super is a shooting man who knows his guns he'd tell you to russle up some land permission and bob's your uncle.

You wouldn't even need land permission. Thats no a legal requirement, just a method applied. But alas, knowledge of guns isn't required to be a FAO or reletive super

cavan shooter

Lads

You need a good reason for to have a firearm, and God helps us when that changes: (see below from NARGC pamphlet)

What do I have to do to get a firearm licence?
You apply at your local Garda Station. You must satisfy certain basic requirements under Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 which are:-

a) that you can demonstrate a good reason for requiring the firearm;
b) that you are a person who can have a firearm without posing a danger to public safety or the peace,
c) that you are not a disentitled person under Section 8 of the Act,
d) that you have a secure place to store the firearm and ammunition.

Imagine a conversation that goes something like this:
Garda: So you want a gun then, are you into shooting then?
applicant: No
Garda: Why do you wanta gun then?
applicant:Because they look nice, I like the feel of them, I like the smell of the oil, they talk to me, they ask me to bring them home.

I agree with meathstevie in relation to an investment but would it be interpreted as the good reason??

chem

cavan shooter wrote: »

I agree with meathstevie in relation to an investment but would it be interpreted as the good reason??

It brings me back to what I said afew lines up. Not one thing has changed here folks. Its still up to the area "manager" as to if he will allow it or not. Its one man sitting behind a desk and signing the paper. So still going to be areas where it will be OK to have and areas where it wont. Unless the law comes with a rule book for the supers/commishs to read from its going to be more of the same as we had before.:rolleyes:

Sparks

No chem, it's not - that's the point. It's now down to one man - the commissioner - because if you think a district super is going to do anything other than what the commissioner says on this, you're kidding yourself. The only reason you don't see it being done by the superintendents and the commissioner at the moment is that Dunne v Donoghue said that the commissioner couldn't legally do so - the changes in the firearms act have now altered that state of affairs for restricted firearms.

Legally, up until now, the local superintendent was a persona designata when it came to licencing - noone could tell him to licence or not to licence. Best you could do was a judicial review in the high court that said he had to remake his decision because he'd not adhered to the guidelines in the Act, and that wasn't an order to grant (though it was often treated that way).

But with the new Firearms Act, the superintendent is no longer a persona designata for restricted firearms - and in fact, I don't think there is a persona designata in the Gardai anymore, because you can take the super or commissioner to the district court if you wish to challange his decision and now the DC can order that the licence be granted or not; which means the judge in the DC can overrule the super or commissioner. And of course, the Circuit Court can override the DC and the High Court can override the CC and the Supreme Court can override the HC, and if you've still annoyed the DoJ/Gardai enough at that point, they can write another Firearms Act (and I'm only partly joking there).

chem

Sparks wrote: »

No chem, it's not - that's the point. It's now down to one man - the commissioner - because if you think a district super is going to do anything other than what the commissioner says on this, you're kidding yourself. The only reason you don't see it being done by the superintendents and the commissioner at the moment is that Dunne v Donoghue said that the commissioner couldn't legally do so - the changes in the firearms act have now altered that state of affairs for restricted firearms.

Legally, up until now, the local superintendent was a persona designata when it came to licencing - noone could tell him to licence or not to licence. Best you could do was a judicial review in the high court that said he had to remake his decision because he'd not adhered to the guidelines in the Act, and that wasn't an order to grant (though it was often treated that way).

But with the new Firearms Act, the superintendent is no longer a persona designata for restricted firearms - and in fact, I don't think there is a persona designata in the Gardai anymore, because you can take the super or commissioner to the district court if you wish to challange his decision and now the DC can order that the licence be granted or not; which means the judge in the DC can overrule the super or commissioner. And of course, the Circuit Court can override the DC and the High Court can override the CC and the Supreme Court can override the HC, and if you've still annoyed the DoJ/Gardai enough at that point, they can write another Firearms Act (and I'm only partly joking there).

Is this not what im saying sparks? ONE man makes HIS mind up if HE wants to grant the licence. If it is the commissioner for restricted list or the super for anything else. Thats my point its one man and his wanting to grant a licence or not.

So whats the difference from before?? Right we can now take the decision to the district court. which leads me back to what I said More court cases.

Am I completely missing the point here? All im saying is unless the gardi have guidelines on how to implament the laws its still one mans decision whatever the firearm. I think you picked me up wrong sparks because you are stating the same points as I am trying to get across:p

cavan shooter

Your both right it is down to how the law is applied and the only fair and consistent way law can be applied is through official guidelines/code of practice. This sets the level playing field with official guidelines/code of practice the shooter knows that if he applies what is set down he is complying with the law; The enforcing authorities can only apply the guidelines/code and not any further as it is the agreed.

It takes years for this type of document to be agreed as it takes both sides to come together. However the state always carries the trump card "State security" I have posted endlessly with regards to inconsistent application of statute . You will allways have law, it governs us what we have the right to have is proper application of the Law. (Rant over)

Sparks

I was looking at this bit chem:

So still going to be areas where it will be OK to have and areas where it wont.