Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009

bunny shooter

Meathshooter I had hassle getting an amendment done a few months ago and my local FO had amended licence then Super had a problem with it

After getting Des Crofton involved I got the issue sorted.

Have you got an article 7 from your Super and subsequently an importation permit from DOJ for pistol from North and an exportation permit from DOJ for current one? IMHO if you haven't I would cancel deal and get back your original pistol and hold on to it. If I was you I would make sure ALL the above paperwork is in order BEFORE you do anything if you decide to go ahead.

rrpc

meathshooter wrote: »

was in the process of trading in a 9mm pistol up north for another 9mm where does this leave me now,I have the pistol licence well befor 19/11/08 just waiting for it to come from germany to the north should be there next week,the FO had no prob with it I wonder will that be changed now????:mad:

This is another issue with this stupid 19th November date. Where somebody has a different firearm from the one they had pre November, is that suddenly a disentitlement?

Or what if subsequently you decide to change your pistol for whatever reason. Are you stuck with the one you had before November for the rest of your life?

Its not conceivable that this could or should make it into law.

jwshooter

i cant see this standing up in court .

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

This is another issue with this stupid 19th November date. Where somebody has a different firearm from the one they had pre November, is that suddenly a disentitlement?

The wording of the Bill is

As and from the date of commencement of this section, no application for a firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm shall be considered by an issuing person other than for—
(a) a device capable of discharging blank ammunition and to be used as a starting gun or blank firing gun;
(b) a short firearm of a type specified at paragraph 4(2)(e) of the Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 (S.I. No. 21 of 2008) and designed for use as so specified;
(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

I can't see any way of interpreting that other than if you have a licence for a specific pistol before Nov.19, then you can apply to renew it (there's nothing in there about that renewal being granted); but a change of pistol, a change of owner, anything like that, and the application itself won't be entertained. And the next bit:

Any firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm, other than one to which paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) relates, granted between 19 November 2008 and the date of commencement of this section and in force shall stand revoked.

That to me says that if you don't qualify under the grandfathering arrangement above, then you don't even get the period from commencement to the licence renewal - you lose the licence immediately on commencement.

Its not conceivable that this could or should make it into law.

I'm of the same common-sense opinion, but I have to ask, if it's that obviously not legal, why did the AG's office okay it?

meathshooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

Meathshooter I had hassle getting an amendment done a few months ago and my local FO had amended licence then Super had a problem with it

After getting Des Crofton involved I got the issue sorted.

Have you got an article 7 from your Super and subsequently an importation permit from DOJ for pistol from North and an exportation permit from DOJ for current one? IMHO if you haven't I would cancel deal and get back your original pistol and hold on to it. If I was you I would make sure ALL the above paperwork is in order BEFORE you do anything if you decide to go ahead.

bs I never had an importation permit from DOJ as I was told I didn't need one to import as an individual only for if going trough irish RFD,it a very grey area this new bill,but I agree I would rather keep what I than lose it

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The wording of the Bill is
I'm of the same common-sense opinion, but I have to ask, if it's that obviously not legal, why did the AG's office okay it?

I would have to suggest that it's because the Minister wanted it. The man said on the 18th of November... and what he said is law :rolleyes:

I think if the taxpayer is going to foot the bill for the Minister's hubris then it might be better if that particular section was lost at the committee stage.

Sparks

It would say quite a lot of bad things about the competency of the solicitors and barristers and civil servants employed by the AG's office (and the AG himself) if in fact they okayed something for presentation to the Dail that was so illegal that it wouldn't stand up in court. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any AG would go along with it.

Sparks

Retrospective legislation came up in the Legal Discussion forum in this thread a month or two back. Might be an idea to post the relevant chunk in there for an opinion on anything major that would block it.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

It would say quite a lot of bad things about the competency of the solicitors and barristers and civil servants employed by the AG's office (and the AG himself) if in fact they okayed something for presentation to the Dail that was so illegal that it wouldn't stand up in court. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any AG would go along with it.

Well it mightn't be that black and white. Something like this might never have been tested and their opinion might be to let it run and see. You've got to remember that this is a very temporary section. In less than three or four months it will be moot because all the restricted licences will have been renewed by then. If it's not tested in that time frame, it never will be.

Instinctively we believe this is a non runner. The law often differs.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Retrospective legislation came up in the Legal Discussion forum in this thread a month or two back. Might be an idea to post the relevant chunk in there for an opinion on anything major that would block it.

There is another aspect to this section. If you acquired a pistol licence in the period from 19th November and the law when enacted says that no licences will be considered or issued from that date, then you are effectively in possession of a firearm without a licence for the period from when the licence was issued to when you dispose of the pistol when your licence was 'revoked'.

That's a criminal offence.

meathshooter

its 1972 all over again in a different guise but I know for a fact It wont be 32year before this is challenged,more tax payers money wasted,and a law to ban a sport that you have to be law abiding in the first place to be licenced to partake in SHAME ON YOU

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

There is another aspect to this section. If you acquired a pistol licence in the period from 19th November and the law when enacted says that no licences will be considered or issued from that date, then you are effectively in possession of a firearm without a licence for the period from when the licence was issued to when you dispose of the pistol when your licence was 'revoked'.

That's a criminal offence.

That's not how it's written - it says that no pistol licence applications will be considered after commencement unless there's a licence on that firearm from before Nov.19; anything from Nov.19 to commencement is revoked by the commencement of the act.

edit: If it was written that way, the AG would presumably have blocked it because it'd be retrospective criminal legislation, which is against EU law.

jwshooter

the thing about 1972 was every pistol was taken up because of the troubles

now only the few that done a deal will be allowed to keep there's with no troubles .

this will be challenged from every part

fat-tony

Anyone know how many centre-fire pistol licences have been issued since the Minister's statement in November? The revocation would only apply to those (or to .22 pistols which might fall outside the "designed for" ISSF/Olympic category).

daveob007

jwshooter wrote: »

just see an the news our government are going to tackle gang land crime head on by taking our firearms and limiting air soft.

it might go the way that the uk government have gone in relation to airsoft,,you can only buy an airsoft gun which does not resemble a real gun ie in bright colors,,i have seen them in green,blue,orange etc.
there is a mention of this in that new bill.

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

the thing about 1972 was every pistol was taken up because of the troubles

now only the few that done a deal will be allowed to keep there's with no troubles .

this will be challenged from every part

Nobody that I know of 'done a deal' as you put it.

What possible deal could have been done with this Minister who listened to no one and never changed his mind.

btw, I saw earlier that some people were worried that reloading was removed from the firearms act. This was well advertised that it was going to be moved to the Explosives Bill.

Sparks

Slightly detailed look at the Bill.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

It would say quite a lot of bad things about the competency of the solicitors and barristers and civil servants employed by the AG's office (and the AG himself) if in fact they okayed something for presentation to the Dail that was so illegal that it wouldn't stand up in court. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any AG would go along with it.

I meant to add that I know that the AG's office were against the last firearms act amendments going into the CJA and were overruled, so it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case here also.

Sparks

If that's the case, then it doesn't say too much for Dermot Ahern's competence as a solicitor.

edit: Or as a Minister, now that I think of it.

daveob007

Just heard that the government hope to have this bill become law by the end of june.
hopefully it will be stopped untill we get clarification on a range of matters
ie what is classed as an olympic handgun,can someone who has a cert before the 19th nov last apply for another pistol (even an unrestriced gun)
so many other thing unclear in this bill/reading it is like reading nostradamus, hard to make any sense of it

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Slightly detailed look at the Bill.

Very good

but.....

Section 27 allows the Minister to issue guidelines on the application and operation of the Firearms Acts. This is a significant problem, not because the idea is heinous in the extreme (though frankly, with the technical knowlege of firearms and the cynical attitude thus far expressed by Minister Ahern, ‘heinous’ isn’t far off the mark), but because it creates confusion around the persona designata status of the Superintendents.

I think this section comes under 'general housekeeping' There's an issue relating to the CJA 2006 where the Commissioner issues guidelines, but doesn't have the power to do so. This is a rephrasing of this to empower him through the Minister.

Sparks

Except that the Commissioner has had the power to issue guidelines since the founding of the state - the key word being Guideline Hell, I could issue guidelines to the Supers. The whole thing is that the persona designata status means they could tell both me and the commissioner to sod off

On top of which, I don't know of any other law where the Minister is entitled to direct gardai directly like this. He can order them to pursue a specific goal, but give directions to specific gardai, bypassing the normal chain of command? That's a bit banana-esque.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Except that the Commissioner has had the power to issue guidelines since the founding of the state - the key word being Guideline Hell, I could issue guidelines to the Supers. The whole thing is that the persona designata status means they could tell both me and the commissioner to sod off

On top of which, I don't know of any other law where the Minister is entitled to direct gardai directly like this. He can order them to pursue a specific goal, but give directions to specific gardai, bypassing the normal chain of command? That's a bit banana-esque.

This bored seems very slow at the moment. Is Conor not feeding the hamsters?

This was explained to me a while back and was considered a general housekeeping issue. The interesting bit is the added section (2) after the Guidelines section (1) that specifically states that guidelines on applications for licences and conditions that may be attached to certs can be issued by the Minister and Commissioner

Sparks

daveob007 wrote: »

Just heard that the government hope to have this bill become law by the end of june.

Heard from where, other than from noting the date the Dail rises for the summer and noting that there are dates in the Bill that make no sense if it's not law by then.

hopefully it will be stopped untill we get clarification on a range of matters

I don't know of anything in Dail procedure that will arrest the progress of a bill in order to satisfy questions from any non-governmental group about that bill. Best we can do is questions in the committee stages or the debate stages at this point.

can someone who has a cert before the 19th nov last apply for another pistol (even an unrestriced gun)

We mentioned this earlier - from reading the bill the answer seems to be clearly that they cannot get another fullbore or non-olympic pistol, same as everyone else; but if they went for a licence for an unrestricted firearm that they should be treated the same as anyone else.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

This bored seems very slow at the moment. Is Conor not feeding the hamsters?

In general I try not to ask questions involving Conor and hamsters

This was explained to me a while back and was considered a general housekeeping issue.

Not implying that it's not; just that that's not how it reads to me.

daveob007

heard that on the rte radio 1 news at 9pm this evening

Sparks

Somehow davy, I think they might want it to be legislation before then, but that doesn't mean they'll get what they want...

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

We mentioned this earlier - from reading the bill the answer seems to be clearly that they cannot get another fullbore or non-olympic pistol, same as everyone else; but if they went for a licence for an unrestricted firearm that they should be treated the same as anyone else.

I've read and re-read subsection 3D of section 28 and my interpretation is that it would allow someone who had a full-bore pistol licence before 19th November 08 to apply for a restricted pistol licence. Whether that is for a subsequent licence or whether it's a substitution might be down to guidelines, but there are provisions for the issue of restricted licences through the Garda commissioner elsewhere in the legislation. I would imagine the intent is to "cap" the number of full-bore pistol licences, but not to ban the substitution of second-hand pistols between existing licence holders.

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

I've read and re-read subsection 3D of section 28 and my interpretation is that it would allow someone who had a full-bore pistol licence before 19th November 08 to apply for a restricted pistol licence.

Yes, but only for the pistol they had licenced before Nov 19:

As and from the date of commencement of this section, no application for a firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm shall be considered by an issuing person other than for—
...
(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

(My emphasis). And part (b) pretty much prohibits any firearm licence being granted for a pistol which is currently on the restricted list (ie. all the fullbores).

fat-tony

I accept your emphasis, but that whole section concerns itself with the "application for a firearms certificate" not with the renewals process. So I took it to mean that there would be some consideration for an application for a full-bore pistol certificate (through the Garda Commissioner) from an existing certificate holder, either on a substitution basis or perhaps in some exceptional circumstances for an additional firearm. Otherwise, why have a whole "restricted firearms dealer" system in place, plus a facility for a dealer to apply for an "occasional" import licence specified elsewhere in the legislation? The legislation could have banned new imports entirely, but it didn't.
My conclusion is that the legislation was drafted in a way that allowed the Minister to demonstrate what he said in the Dail last November was being put into law. It's not about good, well-thought out regulation, it's just politics....