Rumour Control : Criminal Justice Act

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Kind of a juxtaposition isnt it?

Erm... no. You sure you meant juxtaposition?

how can you make it easier for them?

"Easier" is probably me choosing the wrong word. What I was trying to convey is that if the Super feels he's taking a risk in saying yes, that that's going to be the problem you should work to solve. So do your safety course, join a club, lay out in detail what you want, why you want it and what the safety measures you've taken are. Reduce the apparent risk, in other words.

The only one who has created the hassle is the Super himself

Actually, it isn't and I've already pointed that out - the hassle hits the Super long before he's heard of you because of the way the law is set up - he's acting to reduce that hassle by punting the decision to the courts - and you're trying to get round that by making that punting seem to be harder than just saying "yeah, sure, that's harmless enough".

.So how do you make it risk free for somone who is fundamentally anti a specific object?

There, you can't - but that's a whole other kettle of fish than what we're talking about here. I'm talking about risk-averse Supers, not anti-gun Supers.

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?

Some know more about firearms than others - and one way to assuage a person's perceived level of risk is through informing them about what they're seeing the risk in. We see no risk in target shooting on a formal range compared to the general public, because we have huge experience and lots of knowlege about that kind of shooting. Take any person from the general public who perceives that as risky, give them our level of information and knowlege, and they won't perceive it as risky any more, or at least not as risky.

chem wrote: »

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.

In which case, that person will win the case in less time than it takes to explain the case in court. However, as I said earlier, there's top-down information on the way for super, so hold off on the courts for a week or two yet.
There is also the possible route of demanding to see under the Data Protection Act the record that the Super has on this person, because if he's refusing to grant a cert, there's the whole issue of libel and such attached to it. I've heard of this approach working in the past - however, I wouldn't recommend such an approach except in cases where every other more reasonable route has been spurned as you describe.

Noone want to go to court

I wish, I really do, that I could believe that - but I've seen proof to the contrary too many times in the last few years. Some people find the "fight the power" sort of thing far more appealing than going shooting it seems

Gunter Mauser

Having a long history of stalking deer,the stalker from Kerry who took his super to court and won, did so because he considered the .308winchester ( not the 7.62 nato) the most suitable upgrade up from .243 winchester. The stalker can for any number of reasons decide to change caliber.

If he started to shoot larger deer at greater distance, if he wanted to use a caliber suitable for both deer and target shooting,if he felt he was experienced enough now to handle more recoil without flinching. At the end of the day he is the person with the experience shooting deer not the super unless he/she is also a deer stalker. If he had applied for a .270 winchester it is possible no objection from the super would have been made. From the stalkers point of view he can rightly state this cartridge has too much recoil for him personally,if the .270 was taken over the .308 to make life easy but as a result ends up developing a flinch its the stalkers fault for not standing his ground. In the end the deer who is hunted is the one who may end up suffering. Because the judge took into account firearms and stalking history as part of the ruling the case was lost by the super.

To object to someone because they want to change caliber or use one that has a similar but not the exactly the same military counterpart is nothing more that objecting because he the super can and he did . Garda hq should be able to inform by directive the actual position regarding cartridges that fall into this category they are available for sporting purposes in this country the chain of command should be capable of clarification before this case was ever taken in the first place. It appears no fear of repremand by the doj to this type of wanton waste by some supers around the country is about to end any
time soon.

Grizzly 45

Yeah you are right Sparks..Quandry would be proably a better word for this:p
Would you think Sparks and all,that there is a maybe unspoken unwritten policy out there in Garda/DOJ circles of grant as few as possible liscenses for the undesireable type firearms as possible??You would somtimes get the feeling that is the attitude from on high.You have more experiance of dealing face to face with this lot??This is sort of in relation Re you point of anti and risk averse Supers.Could it be risk averse means."Ok I dont want to issue this but that applicant is going to drag me into the DC and I have better things to worry about inc my shot at the park."Compared to "No nuthin will change my mind..I'm THE SUPER!and I hate guns!thats that! So there!Now![in cheif Wiggum mode].
RE the FOI

ASFIK,the Gardai are FOI information issuance exempt.
They are signatories to it OK,but do have the perogative to deny info for "operational reasons"

chem

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah you are right Sparks..Quandry would be proably a better word for this:p
Would you think Sparks and all,that there is a maybe unspoken unwritten policy out there in Garda/DOJ circles of grant as few as possible liscenses for the undesireable type firearms as possible??You would somtimes get the feeling that is the attitude from on high.You have more experiance of dealing face to face with this lot??This is sort of in relation Re you point of anti and risk averse Supers.Could it be risk averse means."Ok I dont want to issue this but that applicant is going to drag me into the DC and I have better things to worry about inc my shot at the park."Compared to "No nuthin will change my mind..I'm THE SUPER!and I hate guns!thats that! So there!Now![in cheif Wiggum mode].
RE the FOI

ASFIK,the Gardai are FOI information issuance exempt.
They are signatories to it OK,but do have the perogative to deny info for "operational reasons"

Sounds about right 45. Let them take everysuper to court and make it as hard as you can;) Anyone get the feeling its becuse we won before that the power sthat be make it harder?? Supers going ahead with court cases knowing it will be lost agenist them."But hey, it will stop most people getting pistols who look for them" as there is a feeling that my car will be stopped every time for break lights, tax, insurence, NCT, balled tires, etc...............

Sparks

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

Garda hq should be able to inform by directive the actual position regarding cartridges ... the chain of command should be capable of clarification before this case was ever taken in the first place.

No, they're legally bound not to. In Dunne v Donoghue, Garda HQ tried to set a standard of gunsafe needed before a licence would be granted - the NARGC took them to the supreme court and won, so Garda HQ can't issue such a directive. (The CJA does allow them to issue guidelines, the FCP is helping prepare them, but they've not been issued yet and when this case started, the CJA wasn't passed yet).

It appears no fear of repremand by the doj to this type of wanton waste by some supers around the country is about to end any time soon.

The thing is, there can't be a fear of repremand or the DoJ will be breaking the law - a law shooters invested heavily in having made clear right to supreme court level.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Would you think Sparks and all,that there is a maybe unspoken unwritten policy out there in Garda/DOJ circles

Nothing so organised I think Grizzly.

Could it be risk averse means."Ok I dont want to issue this but that applicant is going to drag me into the DC and I have better things to worry about inc my shot at the park."Compared to "No nuthin will change my mind..I'm THE SUPER!and I hate guns!thats that! So there!Now![in cheif Wiggum mode].

No, I think risk averse means "I don't gain anything from granting this licence, but I could end up in the ****e if I grant it and this guy turns out to be another Tony Martin or even just that we get another 'assault pistol' article in the Turbine and I'm listed as the guy who gave it out - I need to cover my ass here or the Park are going to ream me out over it".

RE the FOI

Not the FOI, the Data Protection Act. Different fish.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Let them take everysuper to court and make it as hard as you can;)

Hmmmm. 99% of the applications going well. Firearms law giving Supers and the Commissioner and the Minister the ability to shut us down overnight. One case in the Supreme Court triggers a complete rewrite of firearms legislation that put us in this situation, and you'd recommend taking every Superintendent to court while also decrying the cost of it all, while the FCP is still running and hasn't been given a chance to work yet?

I might disagree with your approach there chem.

Anyone get the feeling its becuse we won before that the power sthat be make it harder?

Is the pope jewish?

Grizzly 45

DPA.. Even worse:(.Everybody and their dog use that to block personal info that you are personally entitled to.

Hmm,just wondering Re ass covering.IF the applicant fulfils ALL the legal criteria of the firearms acts,etc,and the Supers stipulations[if any].Is the Super NOT then legally coverd in law.As to say "Ok somone let their dog loose,BUT he fulfilled ALL legal requirements under our firearms laws.I am not a fortune teller,I cant predict the future.These were the guidelines I had to work on.Blame the law makers not the law enforcers.?"

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

DPA.. Even worse:(.Everybody and their dog use that to block personal info that you are personally entitled to.

Eh, Grizzly, that entire Act basicly says that you are entitled to see any personal information being held on you, it can't be used to deny access to, or correction of, that information.

Hmm,just wondering Re ass covering.IF the applicant fulfils ALL the legal criteria of the firearms acts,etc,and the Supers stipulations[if any].Is the Super NOT then legally coverd in law.As to say "Ok somone let their dog loose,BUT he fulfilled ALL legal requirements under our firearms laws.I am not a fortune teller,I cant predict the future.These were the guidelines I had to work on.Blame the law makers not the law enforcers.?"

Nope. The law, in effect, says "may grant", not "shall grant".

Grizzly 45

Try getting your criminal record or Garda file on yourself.It can be denied under the catch all of "operational reasons"
Ditto your social welfare file,[unless of course you win the lottery,where everyone will gwap at it for the curisioty value:rolleyes:]and actually in some places it has gone so stupid as people wont hand out the public record documents of the register of electors...:eek:.
Getting your birth,marrige,death cert[or anyone elses for that matter,perfectly legal to do so,as it is a public document as well]
is almost a 3rd degree job nowadays. Despite the fact that I am not of a African race or of former East block origin. [No offence to those folks of those parts who might be reading this]

The DPA is supposedly there to give you your personal info,and keep others from it.
BUT it has become all enveloping and some people in power so misinformed/paranoid about it that it is an exercise in kafkaesqusim[is that a word?] to get the info you want,due to total ass covering fear mode.So fair dues if anyone can get their Garda file on the Supers decisions on firearms relating to themselves.

dresden8

You're entitled to see all information that social welfare has on you.

bunny shooter

Lads,

Be under no illusion that files will be "edited" before you are allowed to see them.

Our man in Havana

They have to tell you what was witheld and under what grounds.

I think we are heading way OT.

thehair

Try getting your criminal record or Garda file on yourself.It can be denied under the catch all of "operational reasons"

i can. how. private investigaters= 100 euro
they are more x garda doing this after retire from the force:eek:

Gunter Mauser

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunter Mauser
Garda hq should be able to inform by directive the actual position regarding cartridges ... the chain of command should be capable of clarification before this case was ever taken in the first place.

No, they're legally bound not to. In Dunne v Donoghue, Garda HQ tried to set a standard of gunsafe needed before a licence would be granted - the NARGC took them to the supreme court and won, so Garda HQ can't issue such a directive. (The CJA does allow them to issue guidelines, the FCP is helping prepare them, but they've not been issued yet and when this case started, the CJA wasn't passed yet). Quote:
It appears no fear of repremand by the doj to this type of wanton waste by some supers around the country is about to end any time soon.
The thing is, there can't be a fear of repremand or the DoJ will be breaking the law - a law shooters invested heavily in having made clear right to supreme court level. (Quote by sparks)

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

This is Ireland in the year 2008.We have a Dail appointed public accounts committee to look at how public money is spent, value for money,money wasted for no good reason. To say the minister for justice or the commissioner cannot pick up the phone and give an earful down the line to some regional superintendent is playing a game of pass the buck on the grand euro scale. Like teachers if they are utterly useless at the job cannot take personal responsibility only by having a judge do it for them, hiding behind regulations does this not show up any trained professional in a very poor light, what are they paid for but to grant firearms licenses as part of the job.

Garda ballistics: Have they to give answers to what the district superintendent wants to hear to stand up his court case. Are they also untouchable in the chain of command. Can the DOJ not request them to clear up issues like the case in Kerry so that when the super gets on the phone or the pc [if he /she has one], a definite answer is given eg, 7.62 nato ammunition should not be fired in a barrel stamped .308 winchester, yes you can do it but if the 7.62 nato round especially armor-piercing ammo is shoved up the spout of your hunting rifle in a .308 barrel ,chances are its of the higher pressure type for use in the general purpose machine guns [GPMG] definite reason for insurance not to pay out in case of injury. The issue of AP ammo is for US / Nato forces only, not for civilian use. If it is now next to impossible to have a scope shipped from the states, how does the drug dealer get AP ammo in 7.62 Nato from the USA? Eastern European AK 47 more like it.

Regional Superintendents have the authority to impose decisions without interference but they are not above and beyond reproach, the district they control is not a state in the USA, we have a constitution for the greater good, if they are for no good reason objection to already licensed individuals who want to change caliber just because they the superintendent can take a personal dislike to a certain make of firearm or caliber even if the advice is positive from Garda Ballistics what are they doing but going against the grain of common sense, if 7 out of 10 of the supers counterparts around the country have no objection to X why should the one or two be allowed to dig in costing the state tax payer money. Again who pays the bill on behalf of the superintendent if they loose a case in court. Garda HQ or direct from the department of Finance?

Sparks

GM, you're suggesting that Garda HQ or the DoJ ought to be able to pick up the phone and tell a regional super what to grant and what not to grant, something that (1) would be contempt of the Supreme Court, and (2) was precisely how they put in place a de facto ban on fullbore and pistols for 30 years.

Methinks people here are thinking that the Garda HQ would automatically be on our side but the local super wouldn't, which is... puzzling.

Gunter Mauser

GM, you're suggesting that Garda HQ or the DoJ ought to be able to pick up the phone. Quote Sparks.

I stopped your Quote here sparks,as this was the basic point I was trying to make. If common sense cant pervail then its us against the system. I dont think this should be the case, if you believe in the status quo and nothing can done so be it. I do think the waste of public money is an issue that could have the Minister for finance turn around and say... what the F.... is all this 5 Million about. That is my point and really dont care what and how the sensibilities of people prepared to squander public money feel when they can have all the facts at the touch of a button.

dresden8

Is it fair to say that these ridiculous court cases are being charged to the "administration" of the firearms licensing system and we will eventually end up paying for these ourselves.

Gunter Mauser

How's it going everybody? Have any of you heard about the court case in Tuam District Court on Friday the 2nd of may 2008? The Superintendent refused a pistol licence to two individuals on the grounds that the caliber was not suited to target shooting, going down the road of military and police use only! The two applicants took a case to the District Court to appeal the Superintendents decesion to refuse licences. The State produced their expert witness from balistics section in HQ backing their theory that 9mm is not suited to target shooting. The two applicants had expert witnesses from the target shooting world to rebut the evidence of the Gardai. After hearing the evidence the Judge of the District Court GRANTED the licences!!! As far as i am aware this is the first case under the new Criminal Justice Act where an applicant has successfully appealed a Super's refusal through the District Court. At long last we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnell!!!

Dormer wrote:

What can you say, just bang your head off the nearest lamppost.
Ambulance chasing looks almost reasonable, getting Garda Ballistics to
say the earth is flat what next. Give up, just keep on paying the taxes,,,,

Sparks

Gunter Mauser wrote: »

I stopped your Quote here sparks,as this was the basic point I was trying to make.

Thing is GM, by not reading further, you've missed the point. The DoJ is not legally permitted to do what you're asking - because of legal actions taken by us, the shooters.
You cannot have it both ways.

chem

Sparks the point I was making about "let them take all supers to court" was ment as the powers that be making the choice to make every pistol/rifle licence be fought for! Not that we as shooters should take every super to court.

Again Sparks, you seem to think Garda or DoJ play by the rules. In an ideal world yes they would. But the Gardi are still an old boys club. They think a district judge wont go again a local super. They keep taking shooters to high courts. The last high court judge even told the gardi she would make it clear to the other judges, that any other cases coming up before them for the same issue were foolish.

This is just high ranking Gardi making things hard for people. Notting more.

This crap of a super covering his ass and all that is rubbish. Should every driving test tester be made appear before a drink driving court case as he approved the licence? Not knowing that that person would knock down somone? Come on!

The DoJ/Garda HQ are giving instructions to supers and getting there full support.

Sparks i`d like to see the world with your eyes as a black and white world, but there is alot of gray and under table dealing legal or not happening. From top to bottom. Local sargents not approving a licence because the super can then blame the sargent and the circle keeps going around and around.

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

This crap of a super covering his ass and all that is rubbish. Should every driving test tester be made appear before a drink driving court case as he approved the licence? Not knowing that that person would knock down somone? Come on!

Firearm and driving licensing cannot be compared. Virtually none of the population are under the impression that cars are evil, never mind dangerous. Driving testers are not half way up a slippery promotion ladder either.

I don't think that Supers are worried that they'll be held legally liable for the actions of shooters, realistically that's never going to happen. That isn't what was suggested above though. The politically minded ones will be worried about anything that damages their promotion chances. Some of those will be sufficiently risk averse that they'll challenge any firearm application that has the potential to make them look bad.

chem wrote: »

The DoJ/Garda HQ are giving instructions to supers and getting there full support.

If you have proof of this I'm sure that everyone who has a pending court case would love to hear it. If you don't have proof you shouldn't be saying it.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Sparks i`d like to see the world with your eyes as a black and white world

You already do chem. Shooters Good, Gardai Bad.

Truth is, I've seen both sides be just as political, underhanded and plain wrong. I've seen licences granted in court cases that shouldn't have been, and ones refused that shouldn't have been.

What I'd like to see, is an even playing field where everyone knows and at least tries to follow the rules, but even in this thread, we've seen people insisting that the Gardai should act in contempt of the supreme court, just to make shooter's lives easier. If we are so fast to demand that the Gardai ignore the law, we have absolutely no right whatsoever to demand in the same breath that they follow it.

There are genuine cases where the Gardai aren't following the rules - and in those cases, courts have upheld our actual rights time and again. These are, however, a minority of all applications, and while even one unfair rejection is unacceptable, there are better ways to handle this problem than through the courts and those ways are being actively pursued. A lot of what I'm seeing in this thread however, are complaints that the world owes people but hasn't delivered, that they ought to have the legal right to get whatever firearm they want, whenever they want. Which is so far out of whack that it'll be funny in a decade or so when we look back on all this.

Grizzly 45

i can. how. private investigaters= 100 euro
they are more x garda doing this after retire from the force:eek:

[/QUOTE]

As a PI I can tell you Hair that what they are doing is 100% ILLEGAL and DETRIMENTIAL to the PI profession in Ireland.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Not to mind your bank account and firearms application and future liscense possesion.
Those kind of PIs and I will use that term very loosely here are playing fast and loose withthe DPA ,confidentiality and evidence rules.
Not to mind putting you as a client is very serious jeporady as well.This kind of Ex Garda playing at Sam Spade is a serious nusiance to genuine PIs trying to make aliving by doing their job by the book.Even the price they are quoting is absolutely stupid!!!
Iwould strongly advise not having anything to do with EX Garda personel who get this info for you off the Garda computor or whatever.There are already numerous EX Pis and EX Supers in the UK and NI and poorer clients doing a spot of time in the UK prision service for dealing fast and loose with the DPA act.
It is only a matter of time before that happens here.That 100 quid might be the worst spent 100 quid ever ...Be Warned. If you need your file that bad with all the details from the Gardai.Get your solicitor to apply for an order of discovery thru the courts.Costs more ,BUT you have it the legal,unquestionable in a court of law route.
OK rant and warning over.

bunny shooter

But do you drive a ferrari and have a moustache ?

Grizzly 45

Nope! But I do have the NYC baseball cap,and Hawaii shirt,live on a large estate,[no beach..a river do???]with disapproving superior air owner,a bunch of oddball friends& aquaitntences,am applying for a 45ACP.Dont get paid often[if working in Ireland].And wont fit at 6'5" in a Ferrari308 GTS[Neither will Tom Selleck either].A Ferrari Daytona Spyder is a different story. And had a Dobermann years ago...Do I qualify as a PI:p:D:D:D:D

bunny shooter

If you have you're own "little voice" as Magnum does, then ya, you qualify

Grizzly 45

Many of them...8 out of 10 of them told me to stay at home today and clean my guns...:D:D [JOKE].
Lets get back OT,lest we ire out some Mods;)

chem

IRLConor wrote: »

Firearm and driving licensing cannot be compared. Virtually none of the population are under the impression that cars are evil, never mind dangerous. Driving testers are not half way up a slippery promotion ladder either.

I don't think that Supers are worried that they'll be held legally liable for the actions of shooters, realistically that's never going to happen. That isn't what was suggested above though. The politically minded ones will be worried about anything that damages their promotion chances. Some of those will be sufficiently risk averse that they'll challenge any firearm application that has the potential to make them look bad.

.

Public image has notting to do with law.

So wasting 5 million on pointless cases, is not going to make the supers look bad I know one man who has called for the resignation of the local super over licence issues.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Public image has notting to do with law.

no, public image should have nothing to do with law. That's not how it tends to work though.

So wasting 5 million on pointless cases, is not going to make the supers look bad

To us, it's a waste. Does Joe Public see it that way I wonder?

I know one man who has called for the resignation of the local super over licence issues.

only the one? :rolleyes: