An intresting legal question

Mellor

Trojan911 wrote: »

Irrespective of whether one can or cannot bring a concealed firearm onto a bus etc the question is still out there.

I fail to see how the question is still out there, the law as quoted seams very clear cut. Its illegal.

Also the legality is not the whole point. Its not a very smart thing to do from a safety point of view. People might see, muggings etc

Rovi

Legal or not is moot anyway, certainly in the cases of the two clubs where I fire pistols (MNSCI & Hilltop).
Anyone appearing at either wearing a pistol in a holster will be left under no illusion that their presence and custom is not required and the closest they'll get to the firing line is possibly hearing the sound of gunfire in the distance as they exit the premises.

A way around this of course, would be to bring along an empty case/glove and pack the gun into it on arrival at the range carpark. Just don't let anyone see you doing it; some skulking in the bushes or the toilets may be necessary.

Taradusk

Sparks and others, just to clarify, Section 9(5) and 9(6) of the 1990 Act refers to articles other than Firearms. That Part of the Act is not included in the schedule to Part V of the Offences Against the State Act. It solely deals with articles other than Firearms. If used by a Garda, he is outside the remit of the law. In addition, IF a Firearm were considered an article, then this Section would apply,
Possession of knives and other articles. 9. —

[GA] (2) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.

[GA] (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had the article with him for use at work or for a recreational purpose.

No Garda would arrest to have a prosecution fail on these defences.


Other posters here mentioned a shoulder holster. If your car breaks dowm, why in Gods name would you have been in possesion of a shoulder holster anyway unless you were an a***h*le in the first place. Common sense should prevail, rather that procedures for these unlikely events. Example, contact neighbour, friend, or local Garda station, etc, . Explain what has happened, and wait for assistance. Overnight accommodation? Use common sense again.

Sparks

Taradusk wrote: »

Sparks and others, just to clarify, Section 9(5) and 9(6) of the 1990 Act refers to articles other than Firearms.

9(5) says "any article intended by him unlawfully to cause injury to, incapacitate or intimidate any person" and 9(6) says that intent can be decided by the court. There is nothing at all in 9(5) or 9(6) that exempts firearms.

That Part of the Act is not included in the schedule to Part V of the Offences Against the State Act.

Firstly, the Offences against the State act is for offences which undermine the authority of the state - it's specifically aimed at groups like the IRA and their ilk. If you're charged under that, you're in a lot more trouble than either of us have been talking about, and frankly, I wouldn't give much for your chances if you were carrying in a holster.

Despite the Offences against the State Act having been used in the past outside of the anti-terrorist area, it is not the piece of law that defines "disturbing the peace" - that's between the Criminal Justice (Public Order) act (as amended) and common law.

Also, all of the Firearms Acts offences are included in the Part V schedule anyway (it's even specifically mentioned in the CJA 2006) - S.I. No. 142/1972 and SI No. 334/1940 right off a fast search.

In addition, IF a Firearm were considered an article, then this Section would apply

It would except for this little bit:

(2) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.

You don't have lawful authority to carry a firearm in public in the manner described - it would be a breach of the peace, which would void your firearms certificate, as I've said several times already. And you don't have good reason either, because a locked case is more useful for target shooters (and if you're not a target shooter, you don't get a licence) because it allows for the carriage of ammunition, tools, targets, notebooks, etc, etc.

Common sense should prevail, rather that procedures for these unlikely events.

Hear, hear. Despite our difference of opinion over the breach of the peace, I wholeheartedly agree with you here.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

You don't have lawful authority to carry a firearm in public in the manner described - it would be a breach of the peace, which would void your firearms certificate, as I've said several times already. And you don't have good reason either, because a locked case is more useful for target shooters (and if you're not a target shooter, you don't get a licence) because it allows for the carriage of ammunition, tools, targets, notebooks, etc, etc.

This is the bit that confuses me.

Are we saying its ok in a bag or case but not ok in a holster?

Sparks

The problem with the holster is that it's designed function is to allow rapid access to the firearm, not to transport it securely - the case is designed the other way round. Plus, in a case, your average member of the public won't know what it is, hence no panic, hence no disturbing the peace.

(Mind you, go on the bus or in a taxi with either and you're back to breaking the road traffic act again)

It wasn't me!

What would the story be with carrying a rifle in a case? Let's say a hard case, less identifiable than just a slip. Can that legally be carried through Dublin city centre if I have an FAC and a suitable destination?

Sparks

To be honest IWM, I think that'd be down to the Garda or Judge involved. If it's in a locked hardcase though, I'd be rather surprised that (a) you were stopped, (b) you were searched, and (c) that the Garda and Judge decided you were a risk to the peace.

On the other hand, I don't know of too many places in the city centre you could be going that would involve walking any great distances in public. The college clubs are on campus (not public property), and there aren't many gunshops left in the city anymore, and if it was to your home, presumably you've parked fairly close by.

It wasn't me!

Yeah, assuming it's in a locked hardcase, partially disassembled (bolt in jacket pocket or whatever) and I've a definite destination in mind, it would be legitimate, as it's not drawing attention to it, and if it is, the case is locked and the firearm is inoperable? Would this be the best way to deal with it?

Sparks

Well, the biggest worries are breaching the peace (so keep it out of sight and not ready for immediate use), and security. So if you weren't walking around like that for very long, I suppose you'd have a good argument on your side if challanged. I'd prefer not to do it myself, but if needs must...

(If you're planning on doing this often in a particular area, I'd definitely check in with the local super and ask his advice - if only so you could later tell the judge you did so!)

tonysopprano

Taradusk wrote: »

Sparks and others, just to clarify, Section 9(5) and 9(6) of the 1990 Act refers to articles other than Firearms. That Part of the Act is not included in the schedule to Part V of the Offences Against the State Act. It solely deals with articles other than Firearms. If used by a Garda, he is outside the remit of the law. In addition, IF a Firearm were considered an article, then this Section would apply,
Possession of knives and other articles. 9. —



No Garda would arrest to have a prosecution fail on these defences.

Taradusk, a quick look thru many of the posts on this forum will easily show you that many of us posters are more au-fait with the law than most Gardai.

Are you or anybody else willing to take that chance?. Even if proved correct in the long run, you still face an uphill battle to be granted/renew etc an FAC if the system shows that you were arrested/charged/ convicted of an offence involving firearms.

Caution/common-sense/cop-on goes a very long way.Do not let yourself be put in a position that can come back and bite you in the a-s

ironsight

I'm curious,

This is not the USA where the 2nd amendment allows them do what they like with firearms,

BUT
Has anyone to date while en-route to or from the range (while trying to comply with the rule of law) actually for any reason been Stopped & searched and fallen foul of the Garda?

Our certificates say "who is hereby authorized to have in their possession, use and carry"

Now I ask only in respect of traveling to and from the range,( that is to my mind a suitable reason to be in possession of a firearm ) obviously as we are not permitted to carry a concealed firearm in our day to day lives, and I'm not interested in what criminal types do.

Grizzly 45

Not quite Ironsight.It might be a constitutional right,but it doesnt apply in Washington DC,or the easy ownership of every type of firearm .:D

ironsight

I saw something on CNN the other evening about that D.C case, the federal court has overturned that ruling and it is currently being presented as an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
So I'm sure that there is skin and hair flying in the US over that.

Grizzly 45

Yeah,it will depend on what the supreme court justices decide.But that has b een battled backwards and forwards for years in the supreme court,and it changes wether there are dem or republican appointed justices deciding it.

Sparks

Guys, Heller vs DC is pure RKBA and off topic for this forum. Fascinating case, been following it with interest, but Politics is the right place for the discussion.

Taradusk

Sparks, your last statement re comon sense was right on! However, we still must differ on Part Three of the FA & Off Weapons aCT 1990. A breach of the peace is also quite complicated in law. The fact tat a firearm is carried does not in itself constitute a breach of the peace, ie, it is defined generally an any injurious force or violence, moved against the person of another, whether by threatening force, furious gesture or any other frce used in terrorum. Circumstances alone will dictate what a Garda will do in any instance, not the black and white print of an Act or Statute. The OASA is also applicable against ANY offending party, not just those invlved in terrorism.

Sparks

Tara, that definition of a breach of the peace is a reasonable summary of the definition from the public order act, but it's only half the story - common law defines breaching the peace as well. Also, the thing with firearms is that the law treats them very seriously - point a toy gun at someone and it's full-blown assault (because they may not know it's not a gun), point an unloaded firearm at someone and it's assault (because they can't tell it's unloaded) and so on - and displaying a firearm in public will be a breach of the peace through similar reasoning.

On it being down to the Garda, that's always been the case - the 1990 Act gives the discretion to the Garda on the scene implicitly.

And yes, the OASA can be used against any offending party, but it's generally reserved for what most of us would consider "serious" crime, in the sense of fully intended maliciousness.