Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009

Sparks

Yes, but rrpc - if you take the Principal Act, and apply the '64 firearms act to it, all that text in section 28 of the '64 act isn't in the end results. Section 28 changes the text of the principal act, but the text in 28 doesn't appear in the end result. That's what I'm talking about - after this CJ(MP)B is applied (assuming it's passed as written, which is looking more and more horrendous a concept), then the crud being put in place for the transition period will be in the end result. So we'd need a misc bill again after the transition period and then the restatement (or else the restatement itself will just be untidy and hard to decypher).

Sparks

tonysopprano wrote: »

As soon as he can in July(presuming he can get CJB passed), with NO EXTENSION for pistol owners-READ THE BILL.Commissioner will write to you and let you know to reapply and all to be sorted out before 31st July-READ THE BILL.

Actually, the bill doesn't say that.
What it says is that those with licences due to be renewed on July 31 will have an extension automatically for however long it takes to get to them in the phased re-application process, which won't start until a prescribed period after July 31 (and the document given to the FCP above would seem to be setting out what that prescribed period will be).

As an aside, it's the very height of arrogance for the Minister to be setting forth the proscribed periods and laying out what's going to happen like that; in effect, he's snubbing the Dail and the Seanad and the whole Oireachtas procedure by assuming it'll go the way he wants it to go. (Granted, it's on an article noone is particularly worried about, but it's a worrying precedent to be setting).

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

And with their recent performance in the elections do you reckon they will want a diversion and a scapegoat :eek:

I'm more hoping they'll want a cabinet reshuffle...

rrpc

tonysopprano wrote: »

First group will be pistol owners-READ THE BILL.

First, lets assume I read the bill so I don't have to repeat myself in unreadable cyan every sentence. The first group will be restricted firearms owners not pistol owners, so that bit's wrong.

As soon as he can in July(presuming he can get CJB passed), with NO EXTENSION for pistol owners-READ THE BILL.Commissioner will write to you and let you know to reapply and all to be sorted out before 31st July-READ THE BILL.

Not true, it's some time (not specified) after July 31st. Wrong again.

He reckons 1800 pistols now but probably 1600-1700 re-applications refused-[ONLY THE FIGURE IS SPECULATION, THAT'S WHY THE WORD PROBABLY WAS USED

So if you're making stuff up, why don't you just say so rather than implying it's true by your subsequent statements. So not true either.

with new requirements-READ THE BILL

This bit is correct.

(those surving will get 1 year licence-READ THE BILL).

This bit is not correct, read section 28(f). So wrong again.

Then he moves onto shotguns and rifles-READ THE BILL

Unrestricted firearms, wrong again.

with 12 months to refuse/ban re-applications. That is why he has said selective groups and not alphabetically or random.

Or just so that all certs don't fall due for renewal in the same month anymore thus spreading the workload and as was outlined in an FCP briefing document last year (did you read that?). So this bit is speculation and alarmist speculation at that. And it actually states that they will be randomly selected in section 28(b) apart from the restricted group, so that's also wrong.

Now, RRPC, what part do you recon was made up?

All of it bar the fourth bit above. I've just highlighted it because you might miss it.

Half-cocked

Sparks wrote: »

I'm more hoping they'll want a cabinet reshuffle...

Careful what you wish for... we might get a Green Minister for Justice;)

Sparks

Half-cocked wrote: »

Careful what you wish for... we might get a Green Minister for Justice;)

Right now, that'd be an improvement, believe it or not.

Sparks

A detailed look at the CJ(MP)B's problems.
Anyone spot anything I missed in there?

kowloon

Does the CJB still completely ignore the existance of antiques? I can't find a mention.

chem

kowloon wrote: »

Does the CJB still completely ignore the existance of antiques? I can't find a mention.

I think the collecting of de-act smgs and gpmgs will be a dangerous one to follow! Unless you set up a museum :mad:

There is also the wording of Section 2C(2) in this amendment, which makes it an offence (with a penalty of up to €20,000 and a seven-year jail sentence) for putting on display any prohibited firearm or prohibited ammunition. While the curator of the various national museums are happily exempted by Section 2C(4), a private individual who has as a decoration a ‘bullet board’ on their wall might in the worst case find themselves facing a stiffer penalty than common sense would seem to dictate appropriate for a tacky sense for interior decoration. While the Minister’s efforts to address a lack of art appreciation in some parts of the country might be considered laudable by those on the Arts Council, I suspect even their refined tastes might find this particular provision to be somewhat unpalatable.

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

As an aside, it's the very height of arrogance for the Minister to be setting forth the proscribed periods and laying out what's going to happen like that; in effect, he's snubbing the Dail and the Seanad

Don't really get that to be honest. Doesn't the Bill have to be debated and passed by the Dáil and the Seanad? How is that a snub?

meathshooter

BornToKill wrote: »

Don't really get that to be honest. Doesn't the Bill have to be debated and passed by the Dáil and the Seanad? How is that a snub?

I watched minister aherns speech live on the Internet his attitude was its a done deal and I found him very arrogant in his manner pity he wasnt as hardline with real criminals

BornToKill

meathshooter wrote: »

I watched minister aherns speech live on the Internet his attitude was its a done deal and I found him very arrogant in his manner pity he wasnt as hardline with real criminals

Fair enough but that wasn't my question.

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Don't really get that to be honest. Doesn't the Bill have to be debated and passed by the Dáil and the Seanad? How is that a snub?

It's a snub because he's given out the instructions for how the changes will be implemented to the FCP last Tuesday, before the Bill even gets to the Dail Committee Stage. By doing so, he's saying that there will be no changes made to the Bill in the Dail Committee, the Dail, the Seanad Committee or the Seanad, and that it will be passed by all stages and signed by the President according to his timetable.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

It's a snub because he's given out the instructions for how the changes will be implemented to the FCP last Tuesday, before the Bill even gets to the Dail Committee Stage. By doing so, he's saying that there will be no changes made to the Bill in the Dail Committee, the Dail, the Seanad Committee or the Seanad, and that it will be passed by all stages and signed by the President according to his timetable.

The timetable for the passage of legislation is agreed in advance by all parties, amendments are submitted by set dates and debated during the committee stage and in the Dail.

It's no more complicated than an NTSA AGM really

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

It's a snub because he's given out the instructions for how the changes will be implemented to the FCP last Tuesday, before the Bill even gets to the Dail Committee Stage.[/quote

The instructions only relate to the change from a one-year to three-year license, though, and I haven't heard anyone object to that (amazingly). And what's the alternative? People have to know that things are going to be different this year and the sooner they hear that the better. They certainly need to know by 31 July.

Sparks

Timetables for Dail debates and Committee debates and so forth are certainly agreed upon; things couldn't work otherwise. What's not agreed upon, because things wouldn't work if they were, is how those debates will progress. To presume that it's all done and dusted (which is what giving out those instructions to the FCP was doing) is to presume infalliability on the part of the Minister...

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

The instructions only relate to the change from a one-year to three-year license, though, and I haven't heard anyone object to that (amazingly). And what's the alternative?

Defer it. Don't tie it to a set timeframe in the legislation, especially when that set timeframe puts such pressure on the Bill to be rushed through the Oireachtas procedure.

And if ignoring the possibility that the Oireachtas might not believe in Ministerial infallibility can be done because 5% of the population are assumed to have no objections to what's being passed as law (an assumption backed up only by nobody asking anyone), then we've bigger problems. There's a point to these procedures, a reason for the forms. We don't run things this way for fits and giggles, and ignoring those procedures and taking them as an encumberance at best is something that shouldn't be done for pretty fecking fundamental reasons, especially not by a sitting Minister.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Timetables for Dail debates and Committee debates and so forth are certainly agreed upon; things couldn't work otherwise. What's not agreed upon, because things wouldn't work if they were, is how those debates will progress. To presume that it's all done and dusted (which is what giving out those instructions to the FCP was doing) is to presume infalliability on the part of the Minister...

No it assumes (and probably knows) that agreement has been reached with all parties that the debate will have finished by a set date and the bill passed in whatever amended (or unamended) state it is by then.

This happens all the time in the Dail, bills get through all their stages within a set timetable and are passed into law. He's quite entitled to set a timetable and publish it in any case, it's his job after all.

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

because 5% of the population are assumed to have no objections to what's being passed as law

Maybe it's just late but I didn't understand all of this and your posts are usually very clear. 95% are assumed to have objections???

Are the training cert for 14 year olds and the three year cert for the rest of us worth postponing another year over some mostly imagined and certainly exaggerated faults in the bill? Thats if they aren't fixed at committee stage anyway where any part can be amended.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Defer it. Don't tie it to a set timeframe in the legislation, especially when that set timeframe puts such pressure on the Bill to be rushed through the Oireachtas procedure.

There's actually three months stated in for the first licences to be issued under the new scheme. That brings us to the end of October.

In fact the briefing document gives us a deadline for the first licences that doesn't exist in the bill as the bill just says a 'prescribed month after July 2009'.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

No it assumes (and probably knows) that agreement has been reached with all parties that the debate will have finished by a set date and the bill passed in whatever amended (or unamended) state it is by then.

And what sense would the instructions issued to the FCP on tuesday make if Section 26 is defeated by a vote during the debate? What if Section 26 is modified during the debate?
Giving out those instructions, and asking for them to be widely distributed, implicitly implies that Section 26 will not be altered from its current wording and will be passed on the Minister's timetable.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

There's actually three months stated in for the first licences to be issued under the new scheme. That brings us to the end of October.
In fact the briefing document gives us a deadline for the first licences that doesn't exist in the bill as the bill just says a 'prescribed month after July 2009'.

Nope, sorry - none of that applies.
The current law requires all of us to renew our certs on July 31 this year. If we don't do that as the law stands today, then we're all in possession of an unlicenced firearm or two come August 1.

In order for that not to happen, this Bill must pass by July 31; or else we have to go through another year's licences, or else pass a different version of Article 26 that phases in the new licences without the specific deadline the current version has.

The Minister has already given out his instructions via the FCP, so he's assuming that it will all go through on his timetable in the unaltered form. That's the snub I'm referring to.

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

implicitly implies

Sparks, take a well earned break.

Tomorrow is another day. And on that note, good night to all.

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Maybe it's just late but I didn't understand all of this and your posts are usually very clear. 95% are assumed to have objections???

No, I mean that shooters as a group make up 5% (roughly) of the population. If none of us object (and you can only say that because noone's asked all of us), that's 5% of the population not objecting.

Are the training cert for 14 year olds

What part of this Bill affects that? I've not seen the bit that says that the training licence coming in is dependent on this bill being passed. In fact, I can't see anything that says that it will be commenced, whether this passes or not.

and the three year cert for the rest of us worth postponing another year over some mostly imagined and certainly exaggerated faults in the bill?

Oooooo, imagined and exaggerated...

Thats if they aren't fixed at committee stage anyway where any part can be amended.

Excellent idea that, pity that the instructions were already issued though the FCP last tuesday, before the Committee stage starts next week.
"Foregone conclusion" is the phrase, I believe.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, sorry - none of that applies.
The current law requires all of us to renew our certs on July 31 this year. If we don't do that as the law stands today, then we're all in possession of an unlicenced firearm or two come August 1.

In order for that not to happen, this Bill must pass by July 31; or else we have to go through another year's licences, or else pass a different version of Article 26 that phases in the new licences without the specific deadline the current version has.

The Minister has already given out his instructions via the FCP, so he's assuming that it will all go through on his timetable in the unaltered form. That's the snub I'm referring to.

And my point is that it's his job to set timetables for the passage of legislation. It doesn't mean he's telling the Oireachtas to carry out his wishes, but he's entitled to set a timetable and try and follow it.

Sparks

RRPC, I'm not objecting to the idea of having timetables for when debate is scheduled for. I'm saying that the way he's behaving is indicating that he believes he can set not only those timetables, but also the outcome of those debates.
He's not even allowed for the possibility of an amendment to Article 26, let alone the notion that it might not pass. That's just plain arrogant of the man.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

RRPC, I'm not objecting to the idea of having timetables for when debate is scheduled for. I'm saying that the way he's behaving is indicating that he believes he can set not only those timetables, but also the outcome of those debates.
He's not even allowed for the possibility of an amendment to Article 26, let alone the notion that it might not pass. That's just plain arrogant of the man.

Nobody that I've heard of is objecting to section 26 or proposing amendments to it that will change the timings, so he's justified in believing it will remain unchanged.

Do you have an objection to that section?

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Do you have an objection to that section?

Yes. In fact I've more than one.

Section 26 is a rather convoluted amendment which is intended to say that instead of handling an artificially-created high workload on July 31 every year, the 235,000 firearms certificate renewals will be broken up into a number of groups and each group will be given a date to come in and reapply for a firearms certificate, and that anyone with a restricted firearm will be in the first group by default.

While the necessity of this section can be argued well, the drafting leaves much to be desired. It takes several readings – with reference to both Section 30 of the 2006 Act and Section 38 of this Act, as supporting arguments for those interpretations. Indeed, there has already been much confusion in the shooting community on several points in this section.

This amendment requires all firearms certificate holders, regardless of how long they have held their certificates for, to re-apply for new certificates, not merely to renew their existing certificates. The motivation for this is unclear, but it should be noted that the Minister has stated to the Garda class of 2009 upon their graduation earlier this year that he intends to have all 200,000 re-applicants provide character references. While it could be argued that the demand for a character reference to continue possession of a firearm (after years of prior possession of said firearm) implies a character defect in the applicant, and that thus an unimpeachable reference would be required; I cannot help but to feel it would be an unjustified attack on the good name of 200,000 people who have all been personally vouched for in writing by a Garda Superintendent.

It should also be noted, that even if this slander were to be accepted as being necessary for some as-yet-undescribed technical reason, the majority of these 200,000 people have – for reasons of personal security – not actually advertised to anyone outside of their family and local shooting club that they own a firearm. Indeed, the Minister and the Gardai have advised of late that were these people to advertise that they own a firearm, they would be targeted by roving gangs seeking to steal said firearm. Should the Minister pursue this requirement for references, these 200,000 people may now be required to identify one person to whom to disclose this ownership to (I say one because surely the Superintendent who has for years personally, and in writing by approving their certificates, vouched that the applicants are of good character). This represents a significant breach of personal security; an odd requirement to foist on people who are required by law to ensure secure storage for their firearms, and who are being cautioned by the Minister and Commissioner to take especial care with regard to that storage.

This is not, by the way, even touching on the magnitude of the Garda workload imposed by the task of checking 200,000 character references (or double that should the Garda Superintendents be ruled to be somehow untrustworthy enough to be ineligible to give a character reference).

It should be noted that by replacing Section 3(3) of the Principal Act with this amendment – even though it is only for an interim, if indefinite, period – the Minister has seemingly been efficient by eliminating the prior requirement to submit the appropriate fee with the application form for a firearms certificate to the local Garda Superintendent (this handling of fees being a task the Minister wishes transferred to another body, most likely An Post); but in his push for efficiency, he has not only deleted Section 3(3)(a), but also 3(3)(b), which required anyone seeking a firearms certificate for the purposes of hunting game to submit their relevant licence (as issued under the Wildlife Act) along with their application form. Thus were I to seek a certificate for a deer-hunting rifle, for the avowed purpose of hunting deer, I would not be required (as I would be today) to also provide my deer-hunting licence. This would seem to be a rather significant deletion from the point of view of public safety since hunting certificates do not require membership of Garda-approved target shooting ranges as a precondition. While this is a temporary condition, and one that will be corrected on the commencement of Section 30 of the 2006 Act, merely choosing to replace Section 3(3)(a) of the Principal Act instead of 3(3) would have avoided it, and if such an easy solution is so evident, the drafting and vetting of this legislation must be called into question, especially given the lengthy preparation period it enjoyed and the last-minute lengthy delays during which there was no consultation with the Firearms Consultative Panel, who would have highlighted such a error.

On a further and more general point, the including of the date of July 31 2009 in the amendment rather arrogantly dictates a timetable by which this Bill must be passed through the various Oireachtas stages of debate and committee work, and then passed by both the Dail and President and enacted by the Minister. Indeed, should any delay be encountered by this Bill which would prevent its enactment by July 31 2009, some 235,000 certificate renewals would be put at risk, leaving an estimated 200,000 people in contravention of the Firearms Acts (for a rather serious offence, to whit, the possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition)because no provision has been made for the possible failure or postponement of the Bill. This arrogance is continued by the issuing of the Minister this week (on June 9) to the shooting community of the instructions for how Section 26’s provisions will be enacted later this year; instructions which brook no alteration or delay of the Minister’s Bill by any member of the Dail or Seanad or even the President.

Meyer

This amendment requires all firearms certificate holders, regardless of how long they have held their certificates for, to re-apply for new certificates, not merely to renew their existing certificates. The motivation for this is unclear, but it should be noted that the Minister has stated to the Garda class of 2009 upon their graduation earlier this year that he intends to have all 200,000 re-applicants provide character references.

Dermot Ahern wrote:

The Minister considers that his proposals will not cause inconvenience to the vast majority of gun owners, who have had no interest in acquiring hand guns.

If having to re-apply and provide character references is not an inconvenience to the vast majority of gun owners then what is?
This Dictator (And he is clearly that...His putting the results of his legislation into place, before it is even passed is clear evidence of this.) has lied to all shooters in Ireland.
I am no longer just worried about my handgun...I'm not even worried about my semi-auto centerfire! I'm simply worried about every single firearm licence in this country...

PJ Hunter

provide character references".

what kind of character reference. there's this dutch guy i know who's living here less than a year, apart from his irish wife he knows very
few of the locals. will his euro pass do him for the amount ofammo and reference for his firearms.