Firearms Officers

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

so now they can predict the future

No, but a person who comes in and acts like a nutter but has a perfect past history can, will and should be refused a license.

The Gardai can't predict the future but the legislation requires them to do their best.

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

No, but a person who comes in and acts like a nutter but has a perfect past history can, will and should be refused a license.

The Gardai can't predict the future but the legislation requires them to do their best.

The only definitive proof of a persons suitability for firearms ownership
is their past history-and if you think its based around some 5 minute interview to predict your future actions your only fooling yourself.

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

The only definitive proof of a persons suitability for firearms ownership
is their past history-and if you think its based around some 5 minute interview to predict your future actions your only fooling yourself.

And what do they do for people who are not known to the local Gardai and have absolutely no record? (Like me, for example.) What if someone like that came in and in the "5 minute interview" gave the impression that they'd be a danger to the general public or that they weren't being honest about their application? Do you think that they'd be given a license? Do you think they should be given a license?

Sparks

To be fair conor, inside of a five minute chat, the garda's going to know you've been in DURC for years, have been shooting competitively at a national level for years, have been training people to shoot safely for years, he'll know where you're living (and he'll know if the area's a rough one), he'll know where you plan to store it (and by knowing that, he'll know you thought about it, which means you think about the firearm as something to be treated carefully rather than as a toy), he'll know what you want to use it for (and you'd be surprised how much weight the olympics tends to have with the local super), and if he can get past that thing you call a sense of humour, you'll be fine

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

And what do they do for people who are not known to the local Gardai and have absolutely no record? (Like me, for example.) What if someone like that came in and in the "5 minute interview" gave the impression that they'd be a danger to the general public or that they weren't being honest about their application? Do you think that they'd be given a license? Do you think they should be given a license?

well i know for a fact that discreet enquiries are made in my area if the guards are unaware of a persons past history, but the fact that you have never came under their notice would speak volumes, and as for someone giving the wrong impression whilst talking to a guard, it could also be argued that someone with sinister intention could come in and give a good impression-the only concrete proof of a persons stability and fitness is
from their past history there is nothing else to asses them on-a chat about your reasons for wanting a firearm is only to check if your a bona fide shooter ,where you plan to use it etc. ive never even been asked questions in my local station and my last 2 permits were left at the front desk adressed to the super,i only called back to sign the applications when asked to do so, no talk or chat or phsycological evaluation:D

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

To be fair conor, inside of a five minute chat, the garda's going to know you've been in DURC for years, have been shooting competitively at a national level for years, have been training people to shoot safely for years, he'll know where you're living (and he'll know if the area's a rough one), he'll know where you plan to store it (and by knowing that, he'll know you thought about it, which means you think about the firearm as something to be treated carefully rather than as a toy), he'll know what you want to use it for (and you'd be surprised how much weight the olympics tends to have with the local super),

The point I was trying to make was that what you say and do in the station with the Gardai and their impression of you can be taken into account when you're applying for a license. Being on good terms with the Gardai beforehand will make things easier and dropping in to have a chat with them before you apply might make them more amenable to granting you a license, particularly if you intend on applying for something they would otherwise be wary of.

Sparks wrote: »

and if he can get past that thing you call a sense of humour, you'll be fine

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

as for someone giving the wrong impression whilst talking to a guard, it could also be argued that someone with sinister intention could come in and give a good impression

Yes, but anyone (legit or not) who acts like they have a sinister intention when applying for a firearms license should be investigated further.

foxshooter243 wrote: »

the only concrete proof of a persons stability and fitness is from their past history

They don't need concrete proof of anything to refuse you a license. They just need to form an opinion that you're not suitable.

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes, but anyone (legit or not) who acts like they have a sinister intention when applying for a firearms license should be investigated further.
i said they may have a sinister intention but act completley normal when talking to the FO


They don't need concrete proof of anything to refuse you a license. They just need to form an opinion that you're not suitable.

They need enough proof that would hold up under a court of law if some one decides to appeal , they also need to supply that in writing.

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

i said they may have a sinister intention but act completley normal when talking to the FO

I know, I didn't miss that. Perhaps I should have added that you can't defend against that problem but you can decide to investigate further/refuse the application if the person seems dodgy even if they have a squeaky clean record.

foxshooter243 wrote: »

They need enough proof that would hold up under a court of law if some one decides to appeal , they also need to supply that in writing.

They can supply their opinion in writing. Unless I very much misunderstand the Firearms Act all a Super would have to do is stand up in court and say something to the effect of "I refused the certificate because in my opinion the user could not be permitted to possess, use or carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace. I based my opinion on the fact that the person appeared to be angry and impatient and in my experience angry and impatient people are not safe firearms users. My opinion prevented me from issuing the firearms certificate subject to sections 4 (1) and 4 (2) (b) of the Firearms Act."

I don't know of anything in the Firearms Act(s) which requires the "issuing person" to base their opinions on verifiable facts.

meathstevie

Folks, I'd be the last one to start grovelling or genuflecting for anyone but when push comes to shove you have to get some paperwork from the station anyway so it's probably not a bad idea to go in and pick up a form and say hello to the FO if you have a chance. He/she might well be able to give you some informal advice in relation to do's and don'ts in the district.

The example of the Super in Kilkenny with his .223 hang up springs to mind. If you're in that chaps district and you have a word with the local FO before you even bring in any paperwork you probably would have been told that you're wasting your time applying for a .223 and you could have had a swift or a .222 sitting in your safe by the time it took for your .223 application to come back with a njet.

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

I know, I didn't miss that. Perhaps I should have added that you can't defend against that problem but you can decide to investigate further/refuse the application if the person seems dodgy even if they have a squeaky clean record.



They can supply their opinion in writing. Unless I very much misunderstand the Firearms Act all a Super would have to do is stand up in court and say something to the effect of "I refused the certificate because in my opinion the user could not be permitted to possess, use or carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace. I based my opinion on the fact that the person appeared to be angry and impatient and in my experience angry and impatient people are not safe firearms users. My opinion prevented me from issuing the firearms certificate subject to sections 4 (1) and 4 (2) (b) of the Firearms Act."

I don't know of anything in the Firearms Act(s) which requires the "issuing person" to base their opinions on verifiable facts.

so what your saying is the "issuing person" can base their reason upon supposition..really questionable connor dont you think..supposition is what fuelled the Mc Carthy witch hunts in the 50 s:cool:

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

so what your saying is the "issuing person" can base their reason upon supposition.

That's my reading of the Act. Then again, I'm not a Garda, a solicitor, a barrister or a judge so I don't know how it would play out once it hit a court.

Think of the Super in Kilkenny. Does he have hard evidence that a .223 is more of a risk to public safety than a .220 Swift or is it just his opinion based on supposition?

foxshooter243 wrote: »

really questionable connor dont you think

Definitely questionable. Maybe the Act should be worded differently to require hard evidence. Then again there's a trade-off, if you can only base a refusal on the past history of a person (using only hard evidence) then a lot of people who really shouldn't ever get a license become eligible.

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

That's my reading of the Act. Then again, I'm not a Garda, a solicitor, a barrister or a judge so I don't know how it would play out once it hit a court.

Think of the Super in Kilkenny. Does he have hard evidence that a .223 is more of a risk to public safety than a .220 Swift or is it just his opinion based on supposition?



Definitely questionable. Maybe the Act should be worded differently to require hard evidence. Then again there's a trade-off, if you can only base a refusal on the past history of a person (using only hard evidence) then a lot of people who really shouldn't ever get a license become eligible.

Connor twice in your posts you have used the word "investigate" regarding
firearms applications ,this is what im saying its past history that offers up the best evidence of a persons character as this is the only " hard evidence" they have to go on, and as the garda are only human they do make mistakes, they sometimes grant licences to people who are not eligible..the system is not foolproof..

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

Connor twice in your posts you have used the word "investigate" regarding firearms applications ,this is what im saying its past history that offers up the best evidence of a persons character as this is the only " hard evidence" they have to go on, and as the garda are only human they do make mistakes, they sometimes grant licences to people who are not eligible..the system is not foolproof..

So if you were a Super/FAO and someone with a clean record came in and was covered in white supremacist tattoos, mentioned that he hated black people and then applied for a centre-fire pistol you'd say "well, I have no hard evidence that he's a nutter and shouldn't have a gun so I should just approve the application".

What would happen if you replaced that person with someone who was talking to himself but was otherwise normal? Would you approve the application or would you get his consent to make enquiries about his health before deciding?

The whole point of turning up and having a chat with the Gardai before applying is to give them a nice warm fuzzy feeling that you're a sane, sober, friendly person.

Oh, and my name is Conor not Connor. :pac:n

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

So if you were a Super/FAO and someone with a clean record came in and was covered in white supremacist tattoos, mentioned that he hated black people and then applied for a centre-fire pistol you'd say "well, I have no hard evidence that he's a nutter and shouldn't have a gun so I should just approve the application".

What would happen if you replaced that person with someone who was talking to himself but was otherwise normal? Would you approve the application or would you get his consent to make enquiries about his health before deciding?

The whole point of turning up and having a chat with the Gardai before applying is to give them a nice warm fuzzy feeling that you're a sane, sober, friendly person.

Oh, and my name is Conor not Connor. :pac:n

apologies conor not connor . as for your hypothetical kkk person this is not alabama in the fiftys , and as regards your second hypothetical point
you still suggest making enquiries which involves previous history so ....doh homer sorry conor , and as regarding the nice warm fuzzy feeling ...the guards in donegal got that from the morris tribunal ,but it was in their arse not their stomach :D:D

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

apologies conor not connor . as for your hypothetical kkk person this is not alabama in the fiftys

You're impossible! :rolleyes: I picked a deliberately unusual character to illustrate my point (that past history is not the only thing the Gardai will take into account). The details are unimportant. If you want, replace that hypothetical character with someone who turns up looking and acting like a scumbag (and yet who still has a clean record).

I'm not suggesting people should go in and kiss the arses of the Gardai when making an application, just that they turn up, be polite and be friendly. At the end of the day it costs you nothing and it could make your life easier. Anyone too proud to do that needs their head examined IMHO.

Our man in Havana

If you want, replace that hypothetical character with someone who turns up looking and acting like a scumbag (and yet who still has a clean record).

Sadly these types do get their FAC applications granted.

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

You're impossible! :rolleyes: I picked a deliberately unusual character to illustrate my point (that past history is not the only thing the Gardai will take into account). The details are unimportant. If you want, replace that hypothetical character with someone who turns up looking and acting like a scumbag (and yet who still has a clean record).

I'm not suggesting people should go in and kiss the arses of the Gardai when making an application, just that they turn up, be polite and be friendly. At the end of the day it costs you nothing and it could make your life easier. Anyone too proud to do that needs their head examined IMHO.

As I said in my first post on this thread " i have a problem with the gesture of respect mentality" that was promoted in the thread, why
should anyone who is a genuine law abiding person with a clean record think that they would have to run down to the garda station to "butter up" the fo in the first place,if you are a genuine law abiding person with bona fide intentions the fo will give you your licence no problem..that has been my experience , respect is a quality that has to be earned, if it hasnt been earned then "grovelling" springs to mind, and yes im proud to say im too proud for that. statistics prove that the garda are quite adept at weighing people up in dispensing firearms certs.

It wasn't me!

I would have a problem with people being judged on the basis of stuff like tattoos. I mean, it's only a very small and delicate step away from judging someone based on their clothing or having long hair or a shaved head or whatever, which is obviously fundamentally wrong.

In the example given, the guy should be judged based on his racist monologue, not his tattoos, as tattoos can have many, many meanings, the swastika for instance being a pagan symbol for thousands of years before the 1930's. Just a bit of personal pedantry, but I think it's important to clear up what a guard should and should not be able to use to judge the person, and what makes sense to use. Clothing, hairstyle, body art should all be left out, in my opinion.

foxshooter243

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I would have a problem with people being judged on the basis of stuff like tattoos. I mean, it's only a very small and delicate step away from judging someone based on their clothing or having long hair or a shaved head or whatever, which is obviously fundamentally wrong.

In the example given, the guy should be judged based on his racist monologue, not his tattoos, as tattoos can have many, many meanings, the swastika for instance being a pagan symbol for thousands of years before the 1930's. Just a bit of personal pedantry, but I think it's important to clear up what a guard should and should not be able to use to judge the person, and what makes sense to use. Clothing, hairstyle, body art should all be left out, in my opinion.

I second that.:D

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

As I said in my first post on this thread " i have a problem with the gesture of respect mentality" that was promoted in the thread, why should anyone who is a genuine law abiding person with a clean record think that they would have to run down to the garda station to "butter up" the fo in the first place,

They shouldn't think that they have to do it (because they don't). On the other hand, it's worth knowing that having a friendly chat with the FO (not "buttering up" or "arse kissing") can pay out in the long run.

foxshooter243 wrote: »

respect is a quality that has to be earned

They've already earned my respect due to the fact that they do a job that you couldn't pay me to do.

IRLConor

It wasn't me! wrote: »

In the example given, the guy should be judged based on his racist monologue, not his tattoos,

Indeed. However, the tattoos (to me) would be an additional useful indicator, not a reason to reject on their own.

Tattoos only: Odd but if he has a clean record probably harmless.
Racist monologue only: Odd, racist, but not necessarily dangerous. Indistinguishable from many Dublin taxi drivers. :rolleyes:
Tattoos AND racist monologue: I would be hesitant to issue a cert without having a good long talk with him. Racism obviously forms a significant part of his life, I would need to try and find out his intentions.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

the swastika for instance being a pagan symbol for thousands of years before the 1930's

It's still pretty prominent in Hinduism too. You see it all over India and sometimes in Indian communities outside India (but rarely in Europe or North America for obvious reasons).

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

They shouldn't think that they have to do it (because they don't). On the other hand, it's worth knowing that having a friendly chat with the FO (not "buttering up" or "arse kissing") can pay out in the long run.



They've already earned my respect due to the fact that they do a job that you couldn't pay me to do.

yeah, i would imagine being a guard in Dublin is akin to being an american marine in fallujah:D

IRLConor

foxshooter243 wrote: »

yeah, i would imagine being a guard in Dublin is akin to being an american marine in fallujah:D

Not quite. It's more like being a bus driver in Finglas.

foxshooter243

IRLConor wrote: »

Not quite. It's more like being a bus driver in Finglas.

very good:D

Heckler

I live in cork city and theres no such thing as a local Garda that you might know to see out and about. The idea of walking into any of the local or major stations and introducing yourself and getting to know the Garda is just not an option.

I know people who live in country areas who know their local Garda and Supers from seeing them everyday in the local area and they are granted Certs without even having to have gunsafes. Granted this may have been before it became a requirement but it's not an issue when it comes to licence renewal. I have no problem with this as its a case of the Garda knowing the applicant personally and they base their granting of a FAC on that.

At this point though i'd probably lick my FO's boots just to get a meeting to submit my application :rolleyes:

I'll ring again tomorrow and see how I go.

rabbit Stew

So we have decided, the best way to get a cert is not to be:
1) A racist redneck in 1950's Alabama
2) A member of the German Nationalist Party in the 1930's
3) Any one with a foot fetish

But if you are a "Scumbag" or a bus driver from Finglas (these are mutuily exclusive btw) your grand.

Good Work Team:D

Grizzly 45

rabbit Stew wrote: »

So we have decided, the best way to get a cert is not to be:
1) A racist redneck in 1950's Alabama
2) A member of the German Nationalist Party in the 1930's
3) Any one with a foot fetish

But if you are a "Scumbag" or a bus driver from Finglas (these are mutuily exclusive btw) your grand.

Good Work Team:D

SPEW!! there goes my coffee all over my screen again!!!:D:D:D
1] A redneck in Alabama would have no problem gettin a shootin iron then and now.

2] In 1930 Germany,it was the only way to get a gun by being a party member[ 85% of the German pouplation where armed in the 1930s]

3] Foot fetish,well talk to David Mellor Mp[retired] about being caught with a hooker sucking her toes,after calling gunowners after Dunblane "perverts and psychopaths"about losing your seat pretty quickly.:mad::D

Dunno about bus drivers or Finglas scumbags.But it sounds like one needs one and the other can aquire quickly from "Gurrier Homestores" Where everythin is a Steal!!:D:D

Heckler

Rang again yesterday. Same story. FO out of the office. Fair enough. Maybe out on patrol or something. Left my name, number and message again.

It may be my paranoid imagination but when I ring its all very friendly but when I'm asked to leave a message and I say its with regards to getting an appointment to submit an application for a firearms cert the attitude seems to take a downward turn.

I'm thinking of 2 options. I don't want to get stroppy and piss the guy off. One, I find out the next shift my FO starts work and turn up on the door or two, I send him a letter (registered ?) requesting a meeting.

Any thoughts, suggestions ? I don't mind waiting three months for a yes or no. I just want to get the process started. I'm a patient guy just wondering what to do if 2 months down the line he still isn't returning my calls.

IDon'tKnow!

Heckler wrote: »

Rang again yesterday. Same story. FO out of the office. Fair enough. Maybe out on patrol or something. Left my name, number and message again.

It may be my paranoid imagination but when I ring its all very friendly but when I'm asked to leave a message and I say its with regards to getting an appointment to submit an application for a firearms cert the attitude seems to take a downward turn.

I'm thinking of 2 options. I don't want to get stroppy and piss the guy off. One, I find out the next shift my FO starts work and turn up on the door or two, I send him a letter (registered ?) requesting a meeting.

Any thoughts, suggestions ? I don't mind waiting three months for a yes or no. I just want to get the process started. I'm a patient guy just wondering what to do if 2 months down the line he still isn't returning my calls.

I have found getting to see my FO the hard bit, but when I do things move quite quickly about 2-3 weeks for a cert.

The best thing you can do is find out when his shift starts and get to the station close to this time.

I have found leaving a number for the FO to contact you never works as they don't call back.

Its the running around after them that the hardest part of getting a gun. But the longer the wait the more satisfying your first shot will be when you pick the gun up.