Rumour Control : Criminal Justice Act

fat-tony

Bond-007 wrote: »

Is today the commencement date for SI 21/2008?

From the www.targetshootingireland.org website

FCP Notice re: Firearms Act roll out Following advice from the Attorney General that Statutory Instruments giving effect to the firearms act amendments must apply to full sections of the Act and not to part sections, it is now the case that some of the planned roll out of the new firearms code will be delayed at least until the enactment of the Firearms Miscellaneous Bill which is due for publication on July 3rd under the Programme for Government. As a result, the intended classification of restricted firearms will not now be applied on May 1st 2008 as planned.

Our man in Havana

Very interesting. So it's as you were for the time being?

Sparks

chem wrote: »

So should my mate ring the super tomorrow and inform the super of this ruling? Or go the local court route?

No, if the Super is looking to go to court, he's not looking to talk to your mate. So the correct thing for your mate to do is just go to court and have his solicitor (for the love of pete, don't go to court on your own! ) to cite O'Leary v Maher as part of the case.

Bond-007 wrote: »

Full name and address of the shooter given in the paper as per the usual Irish Times MO. :mad:

Things have a habit of hitting the public domain when you go to court... which is a point to always keep in mind.

Sparks

Bond-007 wrote: »

Very interesting. So it's as you were for the time being?

Yup. A "Watch This Space" job though.

Gunter Mauser

Armoured - Piercing, full Metal Jacket used to shoot Deer.:eek:

Why would any hunter want to use this type of ammunition when your
local firearms dealer will supply proper hunting expanding ammo.

Such ammunition is readily available. ( quote times article ) Ap/FMJ.

7.62 nato should only be used with a rifle barrel stamped 7.62 nato,run the risk of a pressure spike or primers that dont fire if you do use 7.62 in a .308 Rifle.
re:foxshooter 243.

Armoured-piercing readily available . North of Baghdad if you are lucky;)
what in gods name does a deer stalker want with this type of ammo even if it could be found?

Expanding ammunition means it expands in a controlled way when it
strikes the Deer, FMJ does not. Of the two I know which one I would
not like to meet if one came my direction and its not Military 7.62 Nato.:eek:

Sparks

Of the two I know which one I would not like to meet if one came my direction

In fairness, you really wouldn't want to meet either type...

Our man in Havana

Sparks wrote: »

Things have a habit of hitting the public domain when you go to court... which is a point to always keep in mind.

I would say it is very bad from a security point of view to print the full name and address in firearms licensing appeals cases. Now every scrote in the southwest knows that this chap has guns. I think some cop on by the papers is needed in these cases. There really should be reporting restrictions in place for these type cases.

Sparks

Well, firstly, it's good to see someone still thinks that the criminal element can read at all, and better to think they're reading the courts section of the Irish Times.

Less flippantly, there's nothing illegal in what the IT did, and in fact it's a sign that they're still the best paper out there because they check their sources and information (contrast with things like the "assault pistols" story in the Turbine a few years ago, or any coverage of firearms at all in the tabloid press). It's something else to keep in mind if considering court as a resolution to a problem.

If it makes you feel any better, the District Courts are the new route and don't tend to get much in the way of that kind of coverage. Of course there you're standing side-by-side with the sort of folk you're worried about as your name and address are read out in court, but swings and roundabouts...

Gunter Mauser

Sparks wrote: »

In fairness, you really wouldn't want to meet either type...

You are correct Sparks but if the super from Kerry thinks the public are in
greater danger from been hit from 7.62 nato ammunition FMJ /AP fired
from a .308 hunting rifle then he is not getting accurate infromation.
All expanding hunting ammo is made to kill animals, Military ammo to wound if
possible.Armoured -Piercing, unless the Deer in Kerry are metal skinned:rolleyes:

The real truth about this waste of Irish Tax Payers Money is that this case should not have happened
in the first place. Why does Garda HQ allow this waste to happen still when the .308 is available nation Wide.
What aprox are the legal costs overall?

Grizzly 45

Full metal jacket armour pierceing 308 ammo.:eek:.Whatever next will the Garda ballistics find here??

Sparks

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

The real truth about this waste of Irish Tax Payers Money is that this case should not have happened in the first place. Why does Garda HQ allow this waste to happen still

Actually, the answer's rather ironic. Garda HQ are not legally able to order a superintendent to grant or deny an application. If the Super wants to go to court, no-one in the Gardai (or for that matter the DoJ, Dail or Seanad or anyone else) has the legal authority to influence that decision - because the ruling in Dunne v Donoghue explicitly states that the Super is the persona designata and noone can tell him whether or not to grant a licence or set conditions for that decision or interfere with it. So in a roundabout sort of way, you might argue that we've had a hand in our own problems. If you were a nitpicking soul, that is

Saddlebags

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

The real truth about this waste of Irish Tax Payers Money is that this case should not have happened
in the first place. Why does Garda HQ allow this waste to happen still when the .308 is available nation Wide.
What aprox are the legal costs overall?

What makes you think the .308 is available nationwide?

foxshooter243

Saddlebags wrote: »

What makes you think the .308 is available nationwide?

im not answering on gunthers behalf, but theres plenty about in our area,
so I would imagine hes implying that they are not impossible to get everywhere else.;)

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, the answer's rather ironic. Garda HQ are not legally able to order a superintendent to grant or deny an application. If the Super wants to go to court, no-one in the Gardai (or for that matter the DoJ, Dail or Seanad or anyone else) has the legal authority to influence that decision - because the ruling in Dunne v Donoghue explicitly states that the Super is the persona designata and noone can tell him whether or not to grant a licence or set conditions for that decision or interfere with it. So in a roundabout sort of way, you might argue that we've had a hand in our own problems. If you were a nitpicking soul, that is

Except there still is a chain of command in the Gardai and the Super can be advised not to defend a case going to court on the basis of legal precedent and cost to the taxpayer. He can still ignore the advice, but if your boss advised you not to do something, would you still do it?

Gunter Mauser

rrpc, can you give a guess at how much it will cost the Super to have
defended and lost this case. Who in the chain of command pays. Is it paid from Garda HQ or DOJ funds? Does the Dail Public Accounts question why this type of case is still been taken by some district Supers when
no ban is in place regarding the likes of .308 or .223 and if a case is taken
yet again the same result will follow, is it not time the super has to pay
the costs of this type of action from his/ her district funds:eek:

rrpc

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

rrpc, can you give a guess at how much it will cost the Super to have
defended and lost this case. Who in the chain of command pays. Is it paid from Garda HQ or DOJ funds? Does the Dail Public Accounts question why this type of case is still been taken by some district Supers when
no ban is in place regarding the likes of .308 or .223 and if a case is taken
yet again the same result will follow, is it not time the super has to pay
the costs of this type of action from his/ her district funds:eek:

I think I heard somewhere that the cost would run to €50,000 for a case taken to the High Court, but I'm not sure. If you lose I'd say it's double that: both parties costs.

No idea who pays, but in these more stringent times I'm sure such things will get a bit more scrutiny then they have in the past.

Gunter Mauser

rrpc wrote: »

I think I heard somewhere that the cost would run to €50,000 for a case taken to the High Court, but I'm not sure. If you lose I'd say it's double that: both parties costs.

No idea who pays, but in these more stringent times I'm sure such things will get a bit more scrutiny then they have in the past.

I think recently the NARGC published a figure of about 5 Million in cases
lost by supers taking this sort of action.

Garda Ballistics at this stage should be able to advise that the .308
is less powerful than the .270 for example,cal size over logic is costing the state and us all lots of wasted euro.:mad:

chem

5 million and growing. Local super knows of the resent high court ruling and is still making people take him to the district court

Sparks

chem wrote: »

5 million and growing. Local super knows of the resent high court ruling and is still making people take him to the district court

High court costs tens of thousands of euros (depending on length of trial and solicitor/barrister man-hours and hourly rates, etc). District Court is basicly free (unless you get a solicitor and even then you're not going to see more than a few hundred on an outlay).

My guess? The Super is figuring that he's not personally footing the bill for the court case; but he is personally going to be the one who issued a firearms cert if something goes wrong. There's no training or support given to him for this role, and there's no upside to him for granting an application. My guess is he's seeing handing off the actual go/no-go decision to the District Court as a no-brainer from his own self-interest's point of view.

Sparks

The high court's office have the judgement by the way, and they say it's in the queue to go up to the website in the next week or two.

Our man in Havana

Sparks wrote: »

High court costs tens of thousands of euros (depending on length of trial and solicitor/barrister man-hours and hourly rates, etc). District Court is basicly free (unless you get a solicitor and even then you're not going to see more than a few hundred on an outlay).

My guess? The Super is figuring that he's not personally footing the bill for the court case; but he is personally going to be the one who issued a firearms cert if something goes wrong. There's no training or support given to him for this role, and there's no upside to him for granting an application. My guess is he's seeing handing off the actual go/no-go decision to the District Court as a no-brainer from his own self-interest's point of view.

With the weight of high court precedent behind the applicants would such objections to licences be seen as vexatious by the courts?

chem

Bond-007 wrote: »

With the weight of high court precedent behind the applicants would such objections to licences be seen as vexatious by the courts?

If enough cases of the same issues, comes before a court ,im sure the judge will soon have enough of it.

From Wikipedia

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may bring down sanctions on the offender.

A single action, even a frivolous one, is not enough to raise a litigant to the level of being declared vexatious. Roy L. Pearson, Jr., an Administrative Law Judge in the District of Columbia, who sued a dry-cleaner for $54 million for allegedly losing a pair of his trousers, is sometimes claimed to be a vexatious litigant; however, he does not have a history of frivolous action like the parties normally considered vexatious.[citation needed]

Repeated and severe instances by a single lawyer or firm can result in eventual disbarment.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

If enough cases of the same issues, comes before a court ,im sure the judge will soon have enough of it.

True enough, though "enough" could be a surprisingly high number in the DCs. DC judges tend to be less formal than those higher up the judiciary chain because they're the front line in criminal law, so to speak, and they tend to come down on the side of order than the side of law quite a lot (from what I hear from those in the know, anyway).

I think though, that the main reason we're seeing all of this of late is down to the average Garda Super/Firearms Officer feeling like they have absolutely no direction from above, but a great big faecal sandwich if they get it wrong; and if I'm right about that one, then the work the FCP's doing should very shortly pay off by solving that problem. In fact, if anyone's in the middle of this now and getting hassle, I'd strongly advise them to not do anything for ten days or so and then try to go back and have a quiet word again.

chem

Sparks wrote: »

True enough, though "enough" could be a surprisingly high number in the DCs. DC judges tend to be less formal than those higher up the judiciary chain because they're the front line in criminal law, so to speak, and they tend to come down on the side of order than the side of law quite a lot (from what I hear from those in the know, anyway).

I think though, that the main reason we're seeing all of this of late is down to the average Garda Super/Firearms Officer feeling like they have absolutely no direction from above, but a great big faecal sandwich if they get it wrong; and if I'm right about that one, then the work the FCP's doing should very shortly pay off by solving that problem. In fact, if anyone's in the middle of this now and getting hassle, I'd strongly advise them to not do anything for ten days or so and then try to go back and have a quiet word again.

Sparks, from what I hear the supers are getting there info from the park HQ. The day is gone off tipping your cap to the local super and saying OK to whatever his mind is on a matter.

It`s time to stop thinking of " Oh the poor super is out on a leg here" its just old garda thinking and "i`ll tell you what to do" thinking.

Why else would a super keep going to the high courts (or district)knowing he will lose?

This issue of wasting tax payers money should be brought up on the air waves. Then see the feed back when people see how much is spent that could of had a fleet more gardi on our streets.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

It`s time to stop thinking of " Oh the poor super is out on a leg here" its just old garda thinking and "i`ll tell you what to do" thinking.

It isn't - and never has been - about "oh, the poor super is out on a limb". The point was to understand the motives of the superintendent in order to choose the most efficient approach to an application.

Why else would a super keep going to the high courts (or district)knowing he will lose?

Because it's not about the Super wanting to win or lose. The outcome of the case is utterly irrelevant to the Super, because if the court makes any decision at all, then the Super has achieved his objective, which is to be able to point to the Judge if something does go wrong down the line and say "Well, I wanted to deny the application, but muggins over there said I couldn't, and so here we are. Not my fault."

Thing is, while you might not agree with him doing it - but... it's hard to see a flaw in the logic of the approach. If the DC orders the Super to issue the licence, or the HC overturns the Super's decision, then any possible liability is distributed or out-and-out transferred. And since the Super is not trained in firearms law, has a huge amount of responsibilities aside from issuing our licences, and can't ever gain but only lose as a result of being the person who makes the decision - and because every single last human on the planet is risk-averse if they stand to gain nothing but lose a lot - kicking it to the courts is the decision that makes the most sense from the point of view of the Super's enlightened self-interest.

The lesson from this is a fairly straightforward one - don't make the Super worry. Make everything as easy as possible for him. Make it so risk-free that the cost to the Super in terms of hassle of going to court at all seems to be not worth it.

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

Why else would a super keep going to the high courts (or district)knowing he will lose?

One potential reason would be to cover his or her arse.

"The judge made me issue the cert even though I didn't want to" is a great excuse when the media starts playing the blame game when someone gets a firearm and then does something stupid/illegal with it. Or even if some anti- gets an article in the paper with a silly headline like "Local man gets military sniper weapon".

Grizzly 45

The lesson from this is a fairly straightforward one - don't make the Super worry. Make everything as easy as possible for him. Make it so risk-free that the cost to the Super in terms of hassle of going to court at all seems to be not worth it.

[/QUOTE]

Kind of a juxtaposition isnt it??You are applying for a liscense and you have to assure the man who is issuing it that you are as safe as houses.. You follow all the requirements of the law of the land to posses said impliment and the person still refuses it despite you following the laws prerequsites..They have the law and the preconditions laid down to refuse /grant you a liscense.So how can you make it easier for them???It's up to them wether you get it or not.You can only do so much too within the law and reason.
So say,you are safe,sane,no history of anything detrimental, fulfill all legal requirements have as much good reason to aquire a specific type of firearm,you are still refused."
Why?" ask you."Cos I donlikedelookodat yoke/I dont have to tell you/your eyebrows are too close together/Your great great grandad was a nut/military calibre and many other such and varied excuses are and have been given.
So off to the DC to find this out with everyone.The only one who has created the hassle is the Super himself.So how do you make it risk free for somone who is fundamentally anti a specific object ??Kind of like encouraging a mouse that honestly that bit of cheese on that trap is very safe to take.

chem

IRLConor wrote: »

One potential reason would be to cover his or her arse.

"The judge made me issue the cert even though I didn't want to" is a great excuse when the media starts playing the blame game when someone gets a firearm and then does something stupid/illegal with it. Or even if some anti- gets an article in the paper with a silly headline like "Local man gets military sniper weapon".

So there are many supers in the country. Trowing caution to the wind and licencing pistols and rifles to people? Why are they braver then the rest?

Its still the problem of, supers with there heads up there AR$E problem. If a super is refusing a licence, for a pistol to one of the biggest gun importers in the country, do you not think its the super ,who has a problem with guns rather then him covering his back

chem

Sparks wrote: »

The lesson from this is a fairly straightforward one - don't make the Super worry. Make everything as easy as possible for him. Make it so risk-free that the cost to the Super in terms of hassle of going to court at all seems to be not worth it.

Sparks that might work, if you could even talk to the man face to face. Refused to meet, refused to talk about it. Told the person to take him to court. Person already has two licences from the same super. All the classics were used.

You cant have that many guns
Both are mill calibers
They are not target calibers
Not used in the olympics

ETC................................

Noone want to go to court but if the super is making people its a problem.

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

So there are many supers in the country. Trowing caution to the wind and licencing pistols and rifles to people? Why are they braver then the rest?

Its still the problem of, supers with there heads up there AR$E problem.

They're not necessarily braver. It could be that they have a different perception of the risks and rewards of going to court over a license application.

Imagine the following Superintendents:

1. thinks that there's a large danger to his career if someone runs amok with a pistol. He also thinks that going to court is a sign of diligence and not wasteful of taxpayer money.
2. thinks that there's a very small risk to his career in licensing a pistol provided he only licenses to people he considers to be sensible. He thinks that if he goes to court too often he'll look bad to his superiors so he only wants to do that if he really needs to.
3. thinks that no-one will blame him for issuing pistols, after all they're going to blame the nut holding the gun.
4. thinks that handguns are inherently dangerous and can not be held by civilians without being a danger to public safety.

Superintendent A will go to court in all but the most clear-cut case. Superintendent B will only go to court if he's of the opinion that the applicant is not suitable for a handgun. Superintendent C will probably just issue unless the applicant is nuts. Superintendent D will go to court every time and refuse every application. Each of the Superintendents above are acting rationally based on their opinions which is what the law requires them to do.

Now those are only 4 possible scenarios for licensing behaviour. There are many, many more and then you have to account for the possibility that some Supers will act irrationally.

You can't just assume that a Super "has his head up his own arse", he could think through an application rationally and decide based on his perception of the risks to public safety that the applicant is not suitable. The law requires that the Super is "satisfied that the applicant complies with the conditions referred to in subsection (2) and will continue to comply with them during the currency of the certificate". He doesn't need to be able to prove that a person does/will not comply with the conditions specified, he just needs to not be satisfied that they will.

chem wrote: »

If a super is refusing a licence, for a pistol to one of the biggest gun importers in the country, do you not think its the super ,who has a problem with guns rather then him covering his back

You're assuming the motivations behind the Superintendents decisions. It's not sensible (or even fair) to do that. For all you know, that Superintendent has a very good reason for not allowing that license.