Rumour Control : Criminal Justice Act

thehair

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.[/quote]

1 i have my rifle
2 you are warning me who made you a mod.
3 relax grizzly 45

Sparks

Hold up there thehair, Grizzy was advising in general against obtaining certain documents through certain avenues he's aware of. It's a sound warning, and not directed towards yourself.

bunny shooter

thehair is up on him now

thehair

Sparks wrote: »

Hold up there thehair, Grizzy was advising in general against obtaining certain documents through certain avenues he's aware of. It's a sound warning, and not directed towards yourself.

ok. grizzy 45 if i am wrong i am sorry for my rant:osteve

bunny shooter

Now that's grovelling !

Sparks

And that's trying to rile someone up...

bunny shooter

You mustn't have seen the

Sparks

I reckon it'd work even with the smiley to be honest.
Anyway...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

I reckon it'd work even with the smiley to be honest.
Anyway...

My turn.............I humbly apologise if any offence is/will/has been caused by my unacceptable behaviour. I would like to say that there isn't/wasn't/won't be any intention to cause suffering or anxiety to anyone. (I can grovel with the best of 'em )

Sparks

:cool:

Grizzly 45

Nothing to apologise for Hair... We all get worked up here about things shooting related. I mean,I can be the worst BSTD about replying narkily to folks on the board [and in work] as well.[As no doubt my many replies to Sparks,IWM,Skia mick and others have shown So apologies to those folks as well.:o]
Trouble is we are just very passionate people,who feel fustrated about the way we are treated with things firearms related.Somone will blow off steam sooner or later.
Regds
Grizzly 45

chem

Group hug?:p Fingers crossed all will be soon sorted out and we get a fair deal from DoJ.

Sparks. You said to hold out for 10 days or so, as somthing is to happen regards supers granting pistol/rifle licences. Whats to happen to clear things up in the near future?


Quote from sparks:

"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."

thehair

bunny shooter wrote: »

Now that's grovelling !

bunny the daddy hair will outcast you from the family:eek:

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Group hug?:p Fingers crossed all will be soon sorted out and we get a fair deal from DoJ.

Sparks. You said to hold out for 10 days or so, as somthing is to happen regards supers granting pistol/rifle licences. Whats to happen to clear things up in the near future?

Chem, see this thread. Sorry it took so long to get the details up.

bunny shooter

thehair wrote: »

bunny the daddy hair will outcast you from the family:eek:

Not again :pac:

thehair

bunny shooter wrote: »

Not again :pac:

i will be keeping a :rolleyes: on you:p:D

Sparks

Okay, the judgement hasn't yet made it to the website, but it's been emailed out, so here it is.

Interesting highlights included the point that it was Garda Ballistics that said the .308 round was the same as the 7.62mm round, not Maher, and the point that they were different rounds seems never to have been made, either in court or beforehand. Also:

The Firearm Acts 1925 indicates that it is the applicant who must be certified as fit by the Superintendent to possess or use a firearm. It is not the firearm itself which is licensed to the owner but rather the owner who is authorised to possess, use and carry the particular firearm. In those circumstances, it must surely be within the remit of the superintendent as the person designated to authorise an applicant to own and use a firearm, to examine both the fitness of the person and the appropriateness of the particular firearm to arrive at a fair determination. The important issue is the applicant’s character, the reason why he requires the particular firearm and whether that particular applicant can be permitted to possess, use and carry a firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or the peace. It seems to me that to refuse a certificate on the grounds of public safety necessarily requires the superintendent to demonstrate some evidence that the applicant Mr. O’Leary himself is in some way more likely to create a danger to the public and especially hill walkers by his handling and use of the .308 rifle.

34.If he did have concerns relating to public safety about the military ammunition which he believed that this .308 calibre could fire, he had the power to attach conditions as to the type and quantity of ammunition for use with the firearm and had the power to revoke a license if he was satisfied that those conditions were not met or if there was a change in the applicant’s circumstances or that he might threaten public safety or peace or that the firearm was being used for an unauthorised purpose. I believe that the first practical step which could have been taken to dispel or confirm his belief that this was a military weapon was to arrange to examine the gun in question. This was never done.

It would, in my view have been quite in order for the respondent to refuse the application if, for instance, while accepting that Mr. O’Leary belonged to a gun club and engaged in deer hunting, his accident record was such that he feared a more powerful firearm would increase the danger to the public. He could quite legitimately say that “I do not believe that you have the ability to handle such a gun.” Instead the superintendent approached the question differently. He looked at the gun rather than the applicant and ignored the applicant’s record as a good shot and competent sportsman and concentrated on the gun itself.

(And this is a good reason as to why we ought to have competency/proficiency courses, by the way)

If he had never held a rifle suitable for large game would the respondent have been entitled to choose a gun for him? Would the respondent have been entitled to direct the applicant to a gun of his choice rather than to a gun chosen by the applicant as suitable for his purposes? I believe not.

It's nowhere near as slap-down-like as we initially thought, but it's all the better a result for that, in my opinion at least.

thehair

And this is a good reason as to why we ought to have competency/proficiency courses,
if you drive a car you would need a B class licence
i used to drive a bus class d licence i needed:)
why not the same for first rifle.22 rinfire IE a.:eek:
CENTREFIRE RIFLE ie .B:eek:

patbundy

It's nowhere near as slap-down-like as we initially thought, but it's all the better a result for that, in my opinion at least.[/QUOTE]


i agree sparks. i read the judgment you posted up.the feeling i got from the super and the ballistic dept was the lack of proper training.i know its not these guys fault but its the system that train them is at fault.if the super got the training ,would this case happen? thats just me thinking:)

Sparks

I think this is probably a case that more knowlege of firearms would have prevented allright, but it's a bit much to expect that the Super would be an expert on all the firearms he can licence (hell, I've been shooting 14 years and I would hesitate before calling myself an expert on .22lr, let alone other calibres). The ballistics department however, I'm somewhat surprised at. I'd expect better from them.

Grizzly 45

thehair wrote: »

And this is a good reason as to why we ought to have competency/proficiency courses,
if you drive a car you would need a B class licence
i used to drive a bus class d licence i needed:)
why not the same for first rifle.22 rinfire IE a.:eek:
CENTREFIRE RIFLE ie .B:eek:

Comes back to the same old thing.
Who pays for it?,who runs it?Who will make ridicilously large money of it?
What will it consist of?When will it be run?Where will it be run?How will it be taught?Why wont/will it recognise qualifications outside Ireland or the EU?

Actually,this is all the more reason for the Gardai to have one dedicated central firearms liscensing unit.Staffed by Gardai or civvies who actually know the but from a barrel on a gun.

thehair

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Comes back to the same old thing.
Who pays for it?,who runs it?Who will make ridicilously large money of it?
What will it consist of?When will it be run?Where will it be run?How will it be taught?Why wont/will it recognise qualifications outside Ireland or the EU?

Actually,this is all the more reason for the Gardai to have one dedicated central firearms liscensing unit.Staffed by Gardai or civvies who actually know the but from a barrel on a gun.

yes you are right but:eek:there are a lot of people on this forum
that can teach people to learn to shoot and YES they sould be PAID
from liscens fees from firearm that how i see it shooter to teach shooter
i can see were you are coming from:) just a idea:Dsteve

Sparks

Those are all valid questions Grizzly, but there are equally valid answers. Courses can be run independently of the Gardai, of the DoJ, and of any NGB body, to a recognised standard and quality. We've discussed this before. There are ISO standards and independent national accreditation bodies for this sort of thing. You'd end up with an agreed syllabus that anyone could become accredited to teach and certify people to. And that's just one option, there are others (I just happen to think that that one suits us best given past history).

IRLConor

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Actually,this is all the more reason for the Gardai to have one dedicated central firearms liscensing unit.Staffed by Gardai or civvies who actually know the but from a barrel on a gun.

I think this would be a great idea actually. It would bring in some more consistency in the application of firearms law and hopefully free up the local Gardai for more important work.

Maybe a process like this for applications:

• You contact the firearms licensing unit.
• They post you out:
  • An application form.
  • An explanatory booklet covering the basics of Irish firearms law and the process involved in applying for a firearm.
• You fill out the form and send it back to them.
• They make sure you have everything submitted correctly (including proof of land permissions/club memberships and the like) and do the basic checks (prior convictions and so on).
• If they think you need a visit from the local CPO and/or an interview with a local Garda, they schedule it now.
• Once all the information has been collected, they present the package to your local Super. They could include a technical opinion if they wanted (something like: "The firearm that the applicant is applying for is suitable for the sport they intend to use it for" or "The firearm is a high risk if stolen, see attached CPO report for details of reccommended security requirements." or "The club that the applicant intends to shoot at isn't actually certified for that type of firearm"). If the Super has all the information in front of him/her it would make his/her job much easier. The Super could contact them to ask questions about the firearm or the type of shooting involved.
• If the Super says yes, then the central unit send you a license, Europass and Article 7.
• If the Super says no, then the central unit send you a written explanation for the refusal based on the information they gathered and feedback from the Super.

It leaves the local Super as the persona designata, but it helps them to make informed decisions and encourages them to lean on the central unit for technical firearms knowledge. The central unit would be well placed to gather information on criminal use of legally held firearms (theft and so on) from the CPOs, information on legitimate use from the NARGC/SSAI/NTSA/IPSA/etc, information on current government policy from the DoJ and information on membership and ranges from the various clubs directly. I figure that the more accurate the information the Super has, the more likely they are to make what we would consider reasonable decisions.

Sparks

Thing is, in this case (O'Leary), it turned out to be the central body (in this case the Garda Ballistics unit) that was the source of the misinformation about the firearm.
And I have a reluctance to completely throw out a system that works more than 95% of the time when it hasn't yet seen any serious attempt to fix it. I'd wait until the FCP guidelines get released and see how they get taken up. If that doesn't work, then I'd start thinking of a slash-and-burn approach.

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

Thing is, in this case (O'Leary), it turned out to be the central body (in this case the Garda Ballistics unit) that was the source of the misinformation about the firearm.

I guess I left out that the central unit would have to be trained well and also informed by the sporting bodies.

Have any of the NGBs tried to correct the Garda Ballistics unit on that point?

Sparks wrote: »

And I have a reluctance to completely throw out a system that works more than 95% of the time when it hasn't yet seen any serious attempt to fix it. I'd wait until the FCP guidelines get released and see how they get taken up. If that doesn't work, then I'd start thinking of a slash-and-burn approach.

Well, if it's slash-and-burn you're talking about I'd go further than what I said above. I'd remove the persona designata status of the Super and get the central unit to decide on the merit of the application.

What I suggested above is mostly a case of moving what the local firearms officers do to a central body. It's not that radical of a change TBH. The bonus comes from increased consistency, reduced training bills (training a small, dedicated unit rather than training all of the FAOs) and freeing up the valuable time of the local Sgts doing FAO duty.

It wasn't me!

Actually, issuing an Article 7 and Europass along with the FAC as a standard procedure is an excellent idea, and would prevent situations like mine where my Super thinks I have to *apply* for it. (Must get back to poking him about that actually...)

IRLConor

The judgement is available online here:

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2008/H113.html

for anyone who'd like to read it.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

I guess I left out that the central unit would have to be trained well and also informed by the sporting bodies.

Have any of the NGBs tried to correct the Garda Ballistics unit on that point?

No offence to the Garda Ballistics unit, but these lads and ladies are the last people that should be involved in firearms licensing. Their work puts them in contact with the absolute worst case scenarios with regard to firearms and their outlook would inevitably be coloured by their experiences.

Well, if it's slash-and-burn you're talking about I'd go further than what I said above. I'd remove the persona designata status of the Super and get the central unit to decide on the merit of the application.

There's a very goood reason why local Superintendents are personae designata. They are best placed to make a judgment regarding an applicant based on local knowledge of both the person and the area. Removing that decision making process to a centralised body could result in poor decision making.

Granted there are problems with the system currently, but I believe that that's more because of the changing nature of society and the loss of the community aspect of policing as a result. Thirty years ago, "known to the Gardai" probably meant that you went for a pint with your local sergeant rather than the current meaning.

Gardai move from station to station and district to district far more frequently these days than in the past. It's very unusual to see the same crew running a rural station for longer than five years. In the bigger city stations it's even more difficult to get any kind of continuity.

What's happening now is that because the Gardai don't know the applicant "seed, breed and generation" the way they used to, they're falling back on the law (which of course they don't know very well) and as a result people are getting refused on arbitrary grounds which in many cases bear no relationship to reality.

Getting clear guidelines issued is only going to be half the battle. There's still the problem of local knowledge to be overcome. When the 1925 act was drafted, it was probably never envisaged that a local Superintendent or Sergeant wouldn't know the applicant at all.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

There's a very good reason why local Superintendents are personae designata. They are best placed to make a judgment regarding an applicant based on local knowledge of both the person and the area. Removing that decision making process to a centralised body could result in poor decision making.

Amen to that. That's the main reason I don't like the whole restricted list idea - moving the decision making away from the local Super has some serious penalties, and the advantages of consistency can be achieved in other ways (admittedly less sexy and more low-level, such as providing clear guidelines to both Supers and applicants, and providing far more training in the relevant legislation for all Supers and FOs, making FO an actual official role rather than a handy term for "yer man that fills out the forms", creating official links between shooting associations or local clubs and dealers and the local Supers rather than the occasional ad-hoc natter over the phone approach that's taken today, and so on and so forth).