Purchasing Ammo On My Behalf?

It wasn't me!

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

Actually, yes they can.On suspicion of having commited a crime under the *** Act 19** etc. They may not get a prosecution but most certainly can arrest a person on suspicion of having committed a crime. Would you really want to spend time answering questions in a Garda station?

To be honest, in the real world, when it's so easily verified, I find it very difficult to imagine a guard arresting anyone for it, and if it did happen, meh, still haven't done anything wrong, so I'd be expecting a good cup of coffee and a biscuit while I answered the questions.

maglite

the post about carring the gun in the car,


If the gun is in the booth or even in the car for that matter is the driver in posetion,


if they ar ewhat happens when you leave the house to go to work? wife knows where the keys to the safe are, knows where the safe is and has access to it.

is she then breaking the law?

It wasn't me!

Presumably. She's not carrying it under your direction for your use (assuming you're the FAC holder) or under your authorisation, so yeah, probably breaking the law.

Sikamick

From what I have heard from the DOJ the carrying of ammunition or firearms under the particular act been stated relates to an unlicensed gillie on the hill carrying for the stalker or the unlicensed shot gun loader at a driven shoot loading for the shooter. It does not apply to licensed holders collecting ammo or firearms for a friend who shoots.

Best check it out with DOJ legal Section.

Dr Strange

rrpc wrote: »

Well, let's paint a little scenario shall we?

Preusse is out for a tramp in the fields several miles from home and comes across a badly injured animal that he feels should be put out of its misery. Reaching for his trusty mobile phone - there being nothing in the vicinity capable of humanely desptching the dying animal - he phones Mrs. Preusse and asks her to hop in the car with his [insert name of firearm here] and some ammo and meet him down the road.

Unfortunately Mrs. Preusse is stopped at a routine checkpoint and of course not being allowed to possess or carry Preusse's firearm or ammunition is arrested.

End result: Mrs. Preusse in clink, firearm in dealers, licence in jeopardy and Preusse in dog house

Hi rrpc,

yes, I am not saying you don' have a point. However, I do believe that there really is no argument against increase of security as to who can and cannot buy ammo. For example, over in Germany, I cannot just send a family member or friend to get me some ammo. It's very strict. And given the loopholes that exist in Irish firearms legislation I do think they should be sorted out even if it takes time. Don't get me wrong, that does not mean you shouldn't have the possibility of sending someone for ammo if you are not able to. However, that someone could be mentioned in your licence as a potential ammo carrier. Let's say it is simila to Eircom Phonewatch where you have to supply the names of at least three keyholders. Do something similar for the licence, name up to 5 people who may collect ammo for you with your licence.

Gunter Mauser

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

Or to put Donald Rumsfield unknowns unknowns another way its the little mistakes that trip you up. Not watching out for loopholes might get you snared or to put it yet another way still and fundamentally back to the same point, grey areas that do exist do in the fact exist to a greater and larger extent if only in the back of the heads of men that something exists in reality that could place you in the back of a cell futher watching a grey area in the corner of the room that you taught you should never have been placed in the first place.

O.....Kay jargon busters going foward, sounds sooooo celtic tiggerish and past tense
Check with the Doj as Mick has mentioned many times previously before you go quoting the law to the night watch Garda who is taking your granny to the cell who collected your ammo while you were so busy. If she took along the pistol as a bit of protection who could blame or cast the first stone.;)

It wasn't me!

The law is as it is. If the legislation doesn't specifically mention ghillies or shotgun loaders (it mentions warehouse staff and transport agents, for example), then it is impossible for them to say "Well, what we mean by that very clearly worded piece of legislation that as it is written very clearly applies to this situation and allows what you are doing, is that it only applies to these people, oh, and those guys, and depending on the occasion, maybe them, but wasn't that obvious?" The law is pretty explicit. It's a tick the boxes type deal. If you tick all the boxes on what's good, then you're in the clear. Simple really.

Sikamick

It wasn't me, (Re my mention of ghillies or shotgun loaders. I have only posted what I was told by the DOJ and you are right about warehousing staff and transport people/carrier.

I am not that well up on firearms law but what I don't Know I ask the DOJ legal section to explain, that way you don't end up pi**ing in the grey area of the cell wondering why you listened to bad advice.

I would not like to be stopped carrying ammo or a firearm that I am not license to have.

I have a friend that ended up in court over something similar ( empty 9mm cases ) and it took him two and a half years to get his guns back.

Gunter Mauser

Someone been found in possession of Firearms & Ammunition is a very serious offence IWM if they have no firearms licence for this firearm. If as Michael O'Connor has stated as direct facts from the Doj as to how they will enforce the law on this matter I think it would be wise to pay attention and have this situation verified by the DOJ once more. IF they the DOJ state clearly anyone, your best friend, Partner, Dad, Grandad cannot carry firearms & ammunition on your behalf then its how they the DOJ interpret the law. Would you risk a best friend;) getting pulled in at a check point in Limerick at the moment with a Glock & Ammo in the glove box of his car.:eek:

Sikamick

DeVore I would be obliged if you could get on to your contact in the DOJ and clear up this question for all of us as to who can actually have a firearm and ammunition in their possession.

Can I get my friend Joe Bloggs to purchase ammunition on my behalf or to collect my firearm from the firearms dealer with my FAC.

This is a very important question and it needs to be answered clearly to avoid someone been prosecuted.

Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

Why should DeVore do this?

Call the Doj yourself and see what they say.

Our man in Havana

+1

Pick up the phone and call them or ask your local FO.

Sikamick

A yes lads the same as usual, like Vultures sitting on the fence waiting to knock any suggestion, and by the way I have done, have you.

Sikamick

Bond-007 wrote: »

+1

Pick up the phone and call them or ask your local FO.

Bond I would say most FO will tell you no, would it not be better to get someone like Devore who doesnt shoot, I think and who has made contact in the past to clear up the question for us.

Sikamick

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should DeVore do this?

Call the Doj yourself and see what they say.

I have, please read my previous posting and the only reason I mentioned it is to save people getting in to trouble and not that you might care.

zaraba whats the problem, are you afraid of the answer.

What the hell are you on?

DeVore is a very busy person and you want him to spend more time chasing around the DoJ to satisfy your curisoity?

You want to know the answer, you say how its vital for the future of the sport so you bloody go ahead and do it.

Call from a phonebox in a different county if makes you happier.

Sikamick

Deleted User wrote: »

What the hell are you on?

DeVore is a very busy person and you want him to spend more time chasing around the DoJ to satisfy your curisoity?

You want to know the answer, you say how its vital for the future of the sport so you bloody go ahead and do it.

Call from a phonebox in a different county if makes you happier.

zaraba
No Sense of Humour. you say how its vital for the future of the sport. Read the posting again I did not say that. No need to get so aggressive.

you need to take a chill out pill.

Rovi

In fairness folks, DeVore has made contact with the DOJ on (shooting) Boards related subjects before, and he does appear to have the ear of someone there who's willing to answer questions.
While any answer he might get would carry no more legal weight than an answer from the DOJ that any of the rest of us would to get to the same question, I don't see the request as being particularly disrespectful or 'lazy'.

Of course, the only true answer to this question would be one handed down by the courts in the event of someone being prosecuted, and I haven't heard of any such case.
Any volunteers to give it a try?

Sikamick

Rovi the request I made of Devore was simple and straight forward. If it saves someone getting into trouble whats the problem, I thought that Boards was for the dissemination of information.

I see zabara is a mod, God helps us if he gets onto the shooting forum.

I am also sure that there has been a number of cases/prosecutions for been in the possession of a firearm or ammunition without having an FAC.

Sparks

Rovi wrote: »

Of course, the only true answer to this question would be one handed down by the courts in the event of someone being prosecuted, and I haven't heard of any such case.
Any volunteers to give it a try?

You know, I don't think that kind of case would ever have anything more than nuisance value? Section 2(3)(f), as rrpc pointed out earlier on another thread, is very clear cut. It - Section 2(3) that is - lists the times when you don't need a cert to carry a firearm, and one of those times is:

( f ) the carriage for sporting purposes only of a firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of the holder of a firearm certificate for such firearm or ammunition;

I mean, there are very gray areas in the Firearms Act - but this is not one of them.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

You know, I don't think that kind of case would ever have anything more than nuisance value? Section 2(3)(f), as rrpc pointed out earlier on another thread, is very clear cut. It - Section 2(3) that is - lists the times when you don't need a cert to carry a firearm, and one of those times is:

I mean, there are very gray areas in the Firearms Act - but this is not one of them.

Sparks question does this not mean official transport companies. I don't think it means private individuals.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks question does this not mean official transport companies. I don't think it means private individuals.

I don't see how it could not mean individuals. The Act's quite clear - "every person who has in his possession" is the wording. From how it's worded (some exceptions refer to individuals specifically like (b), (c) and (d) do, others don't), it definitely covers individuals and you'd have a hard argument to show it didn't cover courier companies.

IRLConor

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks question does this not mean official transport companies. I don't think it means private individuals.

2(3)(d) wrote:

the possession or carriage of a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of business by a person engaged in the business of carrying or of warehousing goods for reward;

That covers transport companies, not private individuals.

2(3)(f) wrote:

the carriage for sporting purposes only of a firearm or ammunition under instructions from and for the use of the holder of a firearm certificate for such firearm or ammunition;

That covers private individuals.

rrpc

There may well have been an intention in the original drafting of 2(3)(f) to only cover ghillies and beaters and other such members of the hoi polloi tugging forelocks to the lord of the manor as they struggle manfully up the hill with the pair of matched purdies and a clatter of ammunition belts, but it doesn't specifically state that, so if I ask my wife to drop my rifle to me as I'm out for a tramp in the fields (yes, yes; I enjoyed it, the tramp didn't ) I don't see how that's specifically excluded.

That particular section was directly from the 1925 act written in 1925, so things have changed a lot since then, but I'd say that if pinned on it, the DoJ would say 'don't ask, that particular boat doesn't need rocking'.

Section 2 is actually in a bit of a mess to be honest. There's been so many amendments and additions that many of them overlap. The amount of exceptions to a firearms certificate is mind boggling. The 1925 act introduced seven exceptions, the 1964 act added subsection (4) which is exactly the same as subsection (3) but has now got eleven exceptions: 3 added by the 2006 act and one by the 1968 proofing act.

Oh, and then there's subsection (5) which added Superintendent's authorisations to the list of exceptions, and subsection (7) as well......

Vegeta

Firstly I agree with Sparks, Rovi, IRLConor etc this really is quite clear


for the sake of debate and completeness

does "sporting purposes" refer to the intended use of the firearm/ammo or the reason the other person is in possession of the firearm/ammo?

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Firstly I agree with Sparks, Rovi, IRLConor etc this really is quite clear


for the sake of debate and completeness

does "sporting purposes" refer to the intended use of the firearm/ammo or the reason the other person is in possession of the firearm/ammo?

It's sort of both really . The person is carrying them for the sporting use of the licence holder.

Rovi

Sikamick wrote: »

Rovi the request I made of Devore was simple and straight forward. If it saves someone getting into trouble whats the problem, I thought that Boards was for the dissemination of information.

Erm... I was supporting your point of asking DeVore if he'd run the question past his contacts in the DOJ.
Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

It's sort of both really . The person is carrying them for the sporting use of the licence holder.

I suppose I should elaborate

Could it be argued (by a judge) that a person carrying your firearm or ammo just because you were in work and couldn't make it to the firearms dealers before they closed, be considered for sporting purposes?

I am aware that the end use for the firearm and ammo is going to be sporting purposes.

I think I've answered my own question really, it is for sporting purposes but just not immediate sporting purposes.

It wasn't me!

I think the clause is specifying that the ammo is for your sporting purposes (where you are the FAC holder), not the sporting purposes of the goon you've made pick it up for you.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I think the clause is specifying that the ammo is for your sporting purposes (where you are the FAC holder), not the sporting purposes of the goon you've made pick it up for you.

I was just afraid a judge could turn around and say convienient pick up from a firearms dealer by a family member (under your instruction) does not fall under the category of "sporting purposes"

This is why I asked does it refer to the intended use of the firearm/ammo (if so then everything is Kool and The Gang)

or

Does the reason for being in possesion of the firearm/ammo have to be a more direct sporting one
i.e. A second person in possesion of the gun as he/she is the license holders reloader/ghillie/stalking partner/spotter. A direct sporting reason.

I agree with you IWM, personally think it's the first example above but what if a judge didn't see it our way. Just thinking out loud really