Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009

daveob007

just looking at the new letter on www.nasrpc.ie
its from dermot ahers meeting with the fcp.
is ther a glimmer of light here?? he is still against the issueing of any new fullbore pistol licences.
still can't find anything about the section referring to a supers requirments
for people applying to renew their certs for pistols.
anyone know what the new requirments will be?????

daveob007

Jonty wrote: »

All the people you have mentioned seem to be more corrupt than ourselves. BTW you left out local clergy.

with all the stuff in the news at the moment and the publishing of the ryan report i dont think the clergy have a moral leg to stand on.
i wont be asking any of them anyway.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And how does it make the system any safer???

I'll just quote from the report of the Barr tribunal:

Inspector Green (NZ Police): "As part of the licensing process the spouse/partner/next of kin of the applicant are interviewed. This is the person who will be closest to the applicant and will know them best. New Zealand Police have found these people to be quite forthcoming with any concerns they might have about the fit and proper status of the applicant.’’

In New Zealand the underpinning of this process is provided by a combination of the Declaration in the application form for a firearms license, and the comprehensive Vetting Guidelines issued to police officers who deal with applications. They comprise an impressive, helpful yardstick for the benefit of such officers. I recommend that similar ‘‘Vetting Guidelines’’ should be introduced in this jurisdiction

daveob007

rrpc wrote: »

I'll just quote from the report of the Barr tribunal:

also the range operator for the range you are a member of should be able to give an account of your attitude and ability ie safe and reliable

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

also the range operator for the range you are a member of should be able to give an account of your attitude and ability ie safe and reliable

There's an inherent conflict of interest in range operators giving references, especially commercial range operators.

Is an operator going to give a negative reference on a customer? especially if the outcome of that reference is going to adversely affect his income?

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

There's an inherent conflict of interest in range operators giving references, especially commercial range operators.
Is an operator going to give a negative reference on a customer? especially if the outcome of that reference is going to adversely affect his income?

And is a wife going to give a bad character reference for her husband?

And as to not yet hearing objections, I've yet to hear any good reasons for introducing this. If the Gardai have concerns, let them state them. If other people have concerns, let them state them. If someone thinks I shouldn't have a licence, I have a right to due process, and if they don't, then why would you need me to get a character reference?

The whole damn thing is an unnecessary waste of my time and I get a bit annoyed when folks assume that my personal time has no value like that.

PJ Hunter

Sparks="And is a wife going to give a bad character reference for her husband"?

well, she might, there known to get moody once the gloss wears off the first few years, of wedded bliss.:D

Sparks= "The whole damn thing is an unnecessary waste of my time and I get a bit annoyed when folks assume that my personal time has no value like that".

whats the point hoarding years of renewals receipts:o now find your
firearms history counts for (0) now who need a reference:eek: :mad:

CJhaughey

I think the way the NZ license is done is to avoid the situation where the spouse is unstable and want to get a license, what better person to ask than the other spouse? I am sure if there was a genuine concern on his/her part it could be communicated to the F.O. that conducts the interview.
Mind you the way the NZ system works there is instruction before any license is given by Mountain safety and others.
It is not simply a case of buy-and-apply-and-wait.

Sparks

CJhaughey wrote: »

I think the way the NZ license is done is to avoid the situation where the spouse is unstable and want to get a license, what better person to ask than the other spouse?

There's a spot of thinking that's never heard of battered wife syndrome...

(and it's a bit naive to think that "problem people" can't obtain references either - how many times have we seen the very pillars of society hauled up in the last decade alone for doing fairly scum-of-the-earth things? They'd have had no problem getting character references...)

Look, far as I'm concerned, if we start doing character references, there's only one reason - to not issue licences to those who don't get references. And if you're going to be refusing licences, then there's a reason for that. And frankly, I want people to be a bit less crawl-under-a-rock about it - either Gardai have been granting licences where they by law should not have been, or things are okay.

And I'm a bit miffed at the idea that I have to go "prove" I'm okay to own the firearms I've been approved to own for the last few years by the Gardai in order to try to get at hypothetical "problem people" by what is a sideways sneaky route. The Gardai - and the government in general for that matter - should not be sneaky, it undermines their moral authority, and that's rather a fundamental thing (and yes, fundamentals do count, it's not naive to think so).

Grizzly 45

And somone let their dog off the leash in NZ as well.
Fat lot of good referals did then!

I have no problem with anything that makes the sport, or ownership safer .But it must be practical,reasonable in price,function,non vexating,logical and benefical,and fair.This is not any of the above.:(

PJ Hunter

if the present car lisence was replaced in the same like manner, what's the chance of stright exchanging one for the other new license. retrospective conditions after many years of fees and licenses, leases memberships you name it. return to level one, no guarantee anything whats on the current lisence inc the firearm gets automatically granted as was usually the case :pac:

Sparks

PJ Hunter wrote: »

if the present car lisence was replaced in the same like manner, what's the chance of stright exchanging one for the other

Well, that's what was done when they changed the passports to these new RFID ones...

bunny shooter

daveob007 wrote: »

just looking at the new letter on www.nasrpc.ie
its from dermot ahers meeting with the fcp.
is ther a glimmer of light here?? he is still against the issueing of any new fullbore pistol licences.
still can't find anything about the section referring to a supers requirments
for people applying to renew their certs for pistols.
anyone know what the new requirments will be?????

Nice to see one of the groups giving us mere mortals some feedback

daveob007

We should just start sending our objections the people who will be sitting on the next dail session on thursday rather than just airing our views here.
I just feel a bit pissed that i might have to provide a reference after owning guns for almost 20 years.

BornToKill

daveob007 wrote: »

We should just start sending our objections the people who will be sitting on the next dail session on thursday rather than just airing our views here. I just feel a bit pissed that i might have to provide a reference after owning guns for almost 20 years.

daveob007: you should have sent in any objections you had to referees and referencing a few years back. Section 32 (3) (d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 contained that provision as recommended by the Barr tribunal. There was nothing sneaky, covert or underhand about any of it. The largest shooting association was there and gave it's views on behalf of members. I'm personally surprised that anyone is surprised or making an issue of it now. I also doubt it's something that the Gardaí particularly wanted to have to do but there you go.

(3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—

( a) proof of identity,

( b) proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,

( c) written consent for any enquiries in relation to the applicant’s medical history that may be made from a health professional by or on behalf of the issuing person, and

( d) names and addresses of two referees who may be contacted to attest to the applicant’s character.

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Section 32 (3) (d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 contained that provision as recommended by the Barr tribunal.

Just take a quick re-read of that provision, would you BTK?

(3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require

There's a (rather sizable) gap between saying that the local Super can ask for a character reference if he wants (which he already could before 2006 because of the Dunne v Donohue ruling); and the Minister saying he's going to make it a blanket precondition for all applicants (which would be in direct contempt of the Dunne ruling unless he intends to introduce an amendment on Thursday that allows it).

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

Just take a quick re-read of that provision, would you BTK?

I don't need to re-read it, S. That's my post after all, I'm quite aware of what it says. I saw the 'may' the first time. What I didn't see was any reliable source saying that the Minister is going to make it a blanket pre-condition for all applicants. Maybe he did but where and when? Link please is, I believe, the common terminology.

PJ Hunter

BornToKill wrote: »

daveob007: you should have sent in any objections you had to referees and referencing a few years back. Section 32 (3) (d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 contained that provision as recommended by the Barr tribunal. There was nothing sneaky, covert or underhand about any of it. The largest shooting association was there and gave it's views on behalf of members. I'm personally surprised that anyone is surprised or making an issue of it now. I also doubt it's something that the Gardaí particularly wanted to have to do but there you go.

(3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—

( a) proof of identity,

( b) proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,

( c) written consent for any enquiries in relation to the applicant’s medical history that may be made from a health professional by or on behalf of the issuing person, and

( d) names and addresses of two referees who may be contacted to attest to the applicant’s character.

is there any irish approved competency courses recognised by everyone and the gardai.

an applicant for a firearm certificate, for someone with or without any firearms and pulse number, for first timer it's normal if the super wants
more.

bunny shooter

PJ Hunter wrote: »

is there any irish approved competency courses recognised by everyone and the gardai......

Each organisation and commercial range has their own standards and practices but I don't think there is any formal recognition of the training given.

I am a Corporal in the RDF and I am an "qualified" to instruct on and use various weapons. However, outside of the RDf my "qualification" to instruct on and use these weapons would probably not be recognised by any other organisation.

meathshooter

I wouldn't have a problem with the references bit in fact I had to provide such about 18 months ago for the super even after having firearms for years
I didn't mind and I got my cert,its the banning bit and importing ban that we should be focusing on

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

I don't need to re-read it, S. That's my post after all, I'm quite aware of what it says. I saw the 'may' the first time. What I didn't see was any reliable source saying that the Minister is going to make it a blanket pre-condition for all applicants. Maybe he did but where and when? Link please is, I believe, the common terminology.

I don't think he has to make it a blanket precondition BTK, we all have to reapply for our three year licences and so all the laws regarding application for a FAC that have been updated by recent legislation will apply.

Secondly regardiing personal imports and EU directive 91/477. This was amended recently and I believe we've been reading it incorrectly:

Member States may not prohibit persons resident within their territory from possessing a weapon acquired in another Member State unless they prohibit the acquisition of the same weapon within their own territory.

It only states possessing a weapon, not acquiring a weapon. So yes you can possess a firearm acquired in another EU member state, but there's nothing that says you can acquire it yourself. Furthermore an amendment added in 2007 states:

Except with respect to dealers and brokers, Member States shall strictly control the acquisition of firearms and their parts and of ammunition through means of distance communication.

This amendment was drafted with direct reference to internet purchases.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

There's a (rather sizable) gap between saying that the local Super can ask for a character reference if he wants (which he already could before 2006 because of the Dunne v Donohue ruling); and the Minister saying he's going to make it a blanket precondition for all applicants (which would be in direct contempt of the Dunne ruling unless he intends to introduce an amendment on Thursday that allows it).

Firstly we will all be applicants when this bill goes through and secondly you're forgetting section 27(2) of the bill that allows the Minister or Commissioner to issue guidelines in relation to applications for firearms certificates as well as the conditions which may be attached to all licences.

Dunne v Donohoe wiped away completely really. I thought I'd pointed this out earlier during a discussion on 27(1) which wasn't really new, but this subsection was.

daveob007

As i am only new to pistol shooting i never knew any of that stuff,i was always happy enough with my .22 and shotgun and had land to shoot on.
All this legislation stuff is fairly new to me and i never had to give a reference before.
My firearms officer is fairly easy going and does not even check my guns at renewal time,he is just happy to renew because i never caused him to question my character.
Please excuse my ignorance in relation to these legal matters.
Looks like i have no choice but to get to know all the proceedures now.
If i had known back then about the reference thing/believe me i would have objected at the time.
I have been on to my TDs for years about getting air rifles/pistols taken off the firearms list and reducing the fees for the licence,but to no avail.

PJ Hunter

most don't have the slightest notion, arrival of the commissioners letter will do it :eek:. nearly all licenses are shotguns and .22 rifles not part of any club. should they get warned:D

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

I don't need to re-read it, S. That's my post after all, I'm quite aware of what it says. I saw the 'may' the first time. What I didn't see was any reliable source saying that the Minister is going to make it a blanket pre-condition for all applicants. Maybe he did but where and when? Link please is, I believe, the common terminology.

As reported by the Times:

The new legislation will also require applicants to submit character references and provide proof they have installed safes and other measures ensuring weapons are properly locked away when they are not being used.

From a speech given to the Garda graduates at templemore this year.

Sparks

RRPC wrote:

Secondly regardiing personal imports and EU directive 91/477. This was amended recently and I believe we've been reading it incorrectly:
It only states possessing a weapon, not acquiring a weapon. So yes you can possess a firearm acquired in another EU member state, but there's nothing that says you can acquire it yourself.

Actually there is (see below) and there's nothing that says you can't. And again, the 2000 report was quite explict on the point that preventing free trade like this was't on.

This amendment was drafted with direct reference to internet purchases.

No, it was drafted with direct reference to illegal arms brokering and illicit weapons manufacturing (it's very explicit on that point). And oddly enough, Ireland still has no laws against that - as Mark Thomas pointed out a few years ago by setting up a few kids in secondary school here as arms dealers and actually buying weapons (in this case "crowd control" stonethrowers). The first law we'll get prohibiting arms brokering will be when this amendment is enacted in Irish law. The amendment (and it was 2008 when it was finalised, it began in 2006) was in response to the EU signing up to a UN arms control protocol (and when the EU signed up to it, you could, under EU laws, get around arms trade embargos (as Thomas pointed out by shipping H&K MP5s to Zimbabwe through a UN embargo by routing them all over the EU so the end user stuff gets confused)).

The EU directive amendment is pretty explicit on this point btw, even the title of the directive is "Combating transnational organised crime: control of the acquisition and possession of weapons, illicit manufacturing and trafficking, tracing of firearms". And it goes on to say:

The acquisition of firearms by private individuals by means of distance communications, for example via the Internet should, where authorised, be subject to the rules laid down in Directive 91/477/EEC

In other words, controlled - not banned. And 91/477/EEC are the rules we've worked under when buying stuff from abroad for the last decade or more.

The part of the amendment you're looking at reads

Member States shall ensure that, except with respect to dealers, the acquisition of firearms and their parts and ammunition by means of distance communication, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, shall, where authorised, be strictly controlled.

Well, here's the thing. It is strictly controlled. You can't import a firearm to Ireland without the local Superintendent's say-so. And he is under no obligation to grant you a licence for that firearm (he's only obligated to act within the law). That is strict control. If the Minister thinks it needs to be stricter, then (a) he's saying he doesn't trust the Gardai, and (b) he's saying his judgement is better than that of the Gardai.

chem

bunny shooter wrote: »

However, outside of the RDf my "qualification" to instruct on and use these weapons would probably not be recognised by any other organisation.

Id say, it would be frowned on if anything bunny :pac: :D:D

PJ Hunter

daveob007 wrote: »

As i am only new to pistol shooting i never knew any of that stuff,i was always happy enough with my .22 and shotgun and had land to shoot on.
All this legislation stuff is fairly new to me and i never had to give a reference before.
My firearms officer is fairly easy going and does not even check my guns at renewal time,he is just happy to renew because i never caused him to question my character.
Please excuse my ignorance in relation to these legal matters.
Looks like i have no choice but to get to know all the proceedures now.
If i had known back then about the reference thing/believe me i would have objected at the time.
I have been on to my TDs for years about getting air rifles/pistols taken off the firearms list and reducing the fees for the licence,but to no avail.

have you been on to the ifa http://www.ifa.ie/contact.htm

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

And it goes on to say:

The acquisition of firearms by private individuals by means of distance communications, for example via the Internet should, where authorised, be subject to the rules laid down in Directive 91/477/EEC

In other words, controlled - not banned. And 91/477/EEC are the rules we've worked under when buying stuff from abroad for the last decade or more.

'Where authorised' appears in both the quotes you posted from the directive.

daveob007

PJ Hunter wrote: »

have you been on to the ifa http://www.ifa.ie/contact.htm

just looked at that and found nothing interesting for shooters.