[Feb 6] FCP Conference on Range Standards

milkerman

Hi All,
I'm a slow reader and it took me some time to read Sparks report on the happenings of the 6th February. One thing caught my eye and the more I think of it the more annoyed I get- just one comment from one of the participants-
"Superintendent Healy said that the authorisation process should be mutually beneficial to both shooters and the Gardai. He stressed the concerns Superintendents have at their responsibility (their ethical/moral responsibility, that is) in the event of an accident at a range they had authorised. He stressed that owning a firearm is a privilege, not a right, and that issuing authorisations or licences is a serious decision, not to be taken lightly.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but our Constitution guarantees the citizens right to the ownership of property. The Constitution also empowers the Government to introduce legislation to limit or regulate the benefits of ownership for the common good - True? Please correct me if I am wrong.
So is it not fair to say that we as citizens DO HAVE A RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP OF A FIREARM subject to legislative conditions imposed by Government? This is entirely different to this senior Garda's statement. To be honest it is this viewpoint that we are recipients of a 'Privelage' that is at the core of a lot of problems cited on these pages from time to time. Should we not pursue this issue? On the other hand I am no lawyer. What do you think?

rrpc

milkerman wrote: »

Hi All,
He stressed that owning a firearm is a privilege, not a right, and that issuing authorisations or licences is a serious decision, not to be taken lightly.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but our Constitution guarantees the citizens right to the ownership of property. The Constitution also empowers the Government to introduce legislation to limit or regulate the benefits of ownership for the common good - True? Please correct me if I am wrong.
So is it not fair to say that we as citizens DO HAVE A RIGHT TO OWNERSHIP OF A FIREARM subject to legislative conditions imposed by Government? This is entirely different to this senior Garda's statement.

Well the definition of a privilege is something that is granted by a government to a restricted group. A right is something that is held by all since birth.

In that respect, his description is correct.

Sparks

Put it this way miklerman - you do, in theory, have a right to own a firearm. But that is not the same thing as possessing or using that firearm. (ie. you can pay for it, and technically you then own it, but unless you have a licence, you're breaking the law just by picking it up).

In the practical sense of things, no, you don't have a right to have a firearm. It's not in section 42 of the constitution, it's not in common law, and we're not the 51st state of the union.

sfakiaman

"Superintendent Healy said that the authorisation process should be mutually beneficial to both shooters and the Gardai. He stressed the concerns Superintendents have at their responsibility (their ethical/moral responsibility, that is) in the event of an accident at a range they had authorised".

I find this bit to be of concern. If superintendents are worried about their responsibility they should not be in a position of authority. In this respect driving examiners have much more to worry about.

It wasn't me!

sfakiaman wrote: »

"Superintendent Healy said that the authorisation process should be mutually beneficial to both shooters and the Gardai. He stressed the concerns Superintendents have at their responsibility (their ethical/moral responsibility, that is) in the event of an accident at a range they had authorised".

I find this bit to be of concern. If superintendents are worried about their responsibility they should not be in a position of authority. In this respect driving examiners have much more to worry about.

From what I've heard, most of them don't want the responsibility at all; they'd rather it went straight over their heads, but unfortunately it doesn't.

milkerman

Sparks wrote: »

Put it this way miklerman - you do, in theory, have a right to own a firearm. But that is not the same thing as possessing or using that firearm. (ie. you can pay for it, and technically you then own it, but unless you have a licence, you're breaking the law just by picking it up).

OK Sparks, I take on board what you say, but... Does 'Ownership' of external property not imbue the individual with rights of ownership such as a right to enjoy an item like a gun?
As a lay person when I read Article 43 I simply see that the individual has a right to own and use and enjoy property subject to laws based on the principal of social justice. Frankly, I am a public servant of many years service and I know it is not within my remit to bestow a 'Privelage' on anyone.
I attach Article 43 below. Not trolling either, quite annoyed that another public servant could think he had a right to bestow privelages to anyone. For God's sake, they will be selling indulgences yet to make up for the pension levy ... Now there something I could try.
Article 43

1. 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

It wasn't me!

The state considers the licensing regime for firearms to be in service of their duty to the common good, is the argument as I see it. Hence the lack of free availability. Everyone can buy a firearm, and everyone can buy a car, provided they have the fiscal means to do so, but there are restrictions on the use of both.

milkerman

rrpc wrote: »

Well the definition of a privilege is something that is granted by a government to a restricted group. A right is something that is held by all since birth.

In that respect, his description is correct.

RRPC, I would argue that we all have a right to own property (a gun for instance) subject to just and fair regulation of use. In the same way as all citizens have a right to apply for and receive the various benefits the state offers subject to regulation.
I do not believe that any fair system can be based on the notion of privelage. If we accept the state's right to offer privelage to certain individuals or groups we are giving a green light to inequity in our society.
Not to say that certain bankers, builders, croneys etc havent already received privelaged status in this country!
I suppose what really gets me is the use of the word privelage
Edit; Please excuse my continued mis-spelling of the word Privilage!

rrpc

milkerman wrote: »

RRPC, I would argue that we all have a right to own property (a gun for instance) subject to just and fair regulation of use. In the same way as all citizens have a right to apply for and receive the various benefits the state offers subject to regulation.
I do not believe that any fair system can be based on the notion of privelage. If we accept the state's right to offer privelage to certain individuals or groups we are giving a green light to inequity in our society.

That really depends on how you acquire that privilege. It's only inequitable if everyone isn't afforded the same access to the privilege. You could argue in fact that owning a car is a privilege in your sense because those who can't afford one will never be able to exercise that privilege.

Sparks

milkerman wrote: »

I suppose what really gets me is the use of the word privelage

Surprisingly, a lot of people feel that way - by which I mean that the word itself is the problem and not the legal status it's describing. Problem is, that's just the way it is. Choose a different word if you want I suppose - A rose by any other name, etc, etc. The important thing is just to keep in mind that our firearms are licenced as opposed to being commodities; and that owning, possessing and using an item are three aspects which may be completely seperate in their treatment under the law.